Reed v. Baggott,

• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: BAILEY, P. J.
• Citation: 5 Bradw. 257,5 Ill.App. 257
• Decision Date: 31 October 1879
• Parties: BETSY S. REEDv.EDWARD BAGGOTT.

5 Ill.App. 257
5 Bradw. 257

BETSY S. REED
v.
EDWARD BAGGOTT.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

October Term, 1879.

[5 Ill.App. 257]

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. HENRY BOOTH, Judge, presiding. Opinion filed March 2, 1880.

Mr. G. G. GIBONS, for appellant; as to privity of contract, cited Compton v. Payne, 69 Ill. 354; Walker v. Brown, 28 Ill. 378; Foley v. Bushway, 71 Ill. 386; Pfirshing v. Falsch, 87 Ill. 262; Strawn v. O'Hara, 86 Ill 55; McCarthy v. Carter, 49 Ill. 53; Fetterhoff v. Paul, 73 Ill. 173.

There is nothing to show any authority on the part of the husband to act for the wife: Potter v. Potter, 41 Ill. 80; Pomeroy v. Roberts, 18 Ill. 294; Pierce v. Hasbrouck, 49 Ill. 23; Boyd v. Merriell, 52 Ill. 151.

The wife is not liable for debts contracted by her husband, though she receives the benefit therefrom:

[5 Ill.App. 258]

Blood v. Barnes, 79 Ill. 437; Dean v. Bailey, 50 Ill. 481; Primmer v. Clabaugh, 78 Ill. 94; Klein v. Seibold, Ill. Syn. Rep. 120.

Giving a note for an entire account due is a presumption that it was intended as a settlement and satisfaction of the account: McConnell v. Stettinius, 2 Gilm. 707; White v. Jones, 38 Ill. 160; Morrison v. Smith, 81 Ill. 221; Leake v. Brown, 43 Ill. 372; Smalley v. Edey, 19 Ill. 207; Phy v. Clark, 35 Ill. 377.

Each of a series of instructions should be accurate: Denman v. Bloomer, 11 Ill. 177; C. B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. Lee, 60 Ill. 501; Coughlin v. The People, 18 Ill. 266; Farrell v. The People, 16 Ill. 506.

Where the evidence is evenly balanced, the instructions should state the law accurately: T. W. & W. R. R. Co. v. Moore, 77 Ill. 217; Shaw v. The People, 81 Ill. 150; Volk v. Roche, 70 Ill. 297; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Hammer, 72 Ill. 347.

Instructions should be based upon evidence: Bradley v. Parks, 83 Ill. 169; Reinback v. Crabtree, 77 Ill. 182; Ill. Cent. R. R. Co. v. Cragin, 71 Ill. 177; Amend v. Murphy, 69 Ill. 337.

Mr. C. F. REMICK, for appellee.

BAILEY, P. J.

This suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, by Edward Baggott against Betsey S. Reed, to recover the sum of $109.50, claimed to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on an account for plumbing, gasfitting, etc., done by him for her. On appeal to the Circuit Court, a trial was had, resulting in a verdict for the plaintiff for $109.50, and judgment thereon for that sum and costs.

The facts disclosed by the evidence are substantially as follows: In April, 1873, the defendant opened a barber shop in the Briggs House, and supplied it with the necessary furniture and fixtures. From that date down to some time in the early part of 1876, she carried on business at that place in her own name, giving it her personal attention, and also employed her husband, Thomas G. Reed, to assist her. In January, 1876, the Briggs

[5 Ill.App. 259]

House was closed, and thereupon Mrs. Reed relinquished said business, and had nothing to do with it thereafter. Shortly afterwards, said Thomas G. Reed commenced said business at the same place on his own account, and took a lease of the barber shop to himself, running for the term of one year from May, 1876. From that time he continued to carry on the business at that place in his own name, using the furniture and fixtures belonging to his wife, and paying the rent and other expenses, and taking all the profits, until September, 1877. At that date, he rented a shop at 153 Washington street, and removed his business there. On removing he took...