Case ID: ill-app_19/html/0642-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Peb Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 1442.
    Parker v. Allen.
    The appellee sued the appellant in assumpsit on two promissory notes, one for $100 and one fur $650. Pleas of the general issue and plea that appellant did not execute the notes sworn to were interposed. The appellant was a married woman at the time the notes were given and her name was signed to them by her husband, whose authority to do this either express or implied, she denied. It does not appear from the evidence that her husband was in her employ carrying on her farm on her account, but on his own, hence no implied authority could be held to exist to sign the notes as a general agent. The evidence to show her actual authority to him to execute them is very weak. In the condition of the evidence the instructions for appellee were erroneous in the manner of submitting the question of implied authority. But the appellant expressed a willingness on the witness stand to pay the $100 note. Recovery should have been had on that note at all events, but it was had on both notes, which was error. As appellee has filed no brief, the judgment is reversed and cause remanded under rule 27 of this court.
    Opinion filed June 8, 1886.
    Attorney for appellant, Mr. H. Gunn.
   Opinion

Peb Curiam.

Judge below, F. H. Shaw.