| Ill. App. Ct. | Apr 15, 1897
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The appellee was a jeweler, and in a little more than two years, with no acquaintance with the appellant, who was a physician and druggist, the appellee sold to, and repaired goods in his line for the wife of the appellant, without his knowledge, to the amount of $134.75. At the time of the trial $40.75 remained unpaid, she having paid the residue.
Among the items were diamond ear rings, $58, of the destination of which there is no account; a watch, $10, to a daughter of the wife by a former marriage and not a member of the family of the appellant; a gentleman’s chain, $6, a present to the lover of the cook. As none of these articles can be considered as being in a family expense account, and their combined price much exceeds the unpaid balance of the account, the finding of the court, trying the case without a jury, should have been in favor of the defendant—the appellant.
There is no appearance here by the appellee.
On the authority of Gaffield v. Scott, 40 Ill. App. 380" date_filed="1891-03-13" court="Ill. App. Ct." case_name="Gaffield v. Scott">40 Ill. App. 380, and Harding v. Hyman, 54 Ill. App. 434" date_filed="1894-06-18" court="Ill. App. Ct." case_name="Harding v. Hyman">54 Ill. App. 434; S. C., with title reversed, 162 Ill. 357" date_filed="1896-03-28" court="Ill." case_name="Hyman v. Harding">162 Ill. 357, the judgment is reversed without remanding.