Reed v. Baggott

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

5 Ill.App. 257

5 Bradw. 257

BETSY S. REED

v.EDWARD BAGGOTT.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District.

October Term, 1879.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

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: 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 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 with him the furniture and fixtures belonging to his wife, and the sum of $42.21 of the account for which this suit was brought was for services rendered by the plaintiff, at the request of Mr. Reed, in disconnecting and taking up the wash bowls at the Briggs House, and removing and connecting the same with the water and wastemains at the shop on Washington street. This work it appears, was done without the knowledge of Mrs. Reed; and her husband, in employing the plaintiff, did not assume to contract as her agent or on her behalf but in fact acted for himself and on his own account.

The sum of $67.31, the residue of the account, was for gasfittings and plumbing in a house on Wabash avenue. The evidence shows that about the 1st of August, 1877, Mr. Reed rented said house in his own name, and had it fitted up with a view to keeping a boarding-house. After taking possession of the premises, he, without the knowledge of his wife, and in no way assuming to act as her agent, ordered the plaintiff to put in said fixtures.

It further appears that in November, 1877, after all of said work was done, it was agreed between Mr. Reed and the plaintiff that said Reed should give his promissory note, due in sixty days, for the entire account, and in pursuance of such agreement, the plaintiff sent his clerk to Reed with the account, whereupon said Reed executed his note to the plaintiff for said amount, and delivered it to the clerk, and received from him the account with a receipt thereon, acknowledging payment by said note. The account when presented was against “B. S. Reed, Esq.,” but on Mr. Reed's suggestion, the initials were changed from “B. S.” to “T. G.”

As to the facts above stated, there is substantially no contradiction. They are supported by the testimony of both Mr. and Mrs. Reed; and the evidence of the plaintiff, when viewed in the light of his cross-examination, furnishes no material contradiction. It is true, the plaintiff, in his direct testimony, says, in terms, that the work was ordered by Mrs. Reed, furnished on her credit, and charged to her account; but on cross-examination he admits that he had no conversation with her about it, and did not even know her; that nothing was said by Mr. Reed at the time the work was ordered about its being for her, and that the only warrant he had for supposing that it was to be charged to her account was a conversation with Mr. Reed in 1872 or 1873, or perhaps earlier. He swears that at that time he was employed by Mr. Reed to do some...