#### Hubert Brossard v. Sol. S. Bateson et al.

*Set-off*— Liability *for goods furnished a third person.*

A promise by A. to B. to give him a suit of clothes on certain conditions1will not of itself make A. liable to the tailor who furnishes them, especially if he does so before the conditions are fulfilled.

Error to "Wayne.

Submitted April 19.

Decided April 25..

Assumpsit. Defendants were merchant tailors and filed' a claim of set-off for the price of a suit of clothes furnished by them to a Captain Jones upon a supposition that plaintiff was to pay for them. It was admitted that plaintiff had never promised defendants to do so, either in writing or *293•verbally, and that he had never given a written order for the clothes, but it was shown that Jones had come to defendants’ store with a business card of plaintiff’s, on the back of which defendants’ address was written, and that he was measured for a suit which was made and delivered to him ■and charged to plaintiff. Defendant Sol. S. Bateson testified that he was not present when the suit was ordered, and that if he had been he would have refused to sell it without further inquiry; he had never before sold in that way, but some days afterward Brossard came into his store and he told him that Jones had got a suit there; Brossard asked the price and on learning it, said it must be a good suit, or it was pretty steep. Jones testified that he was master of a steamer which was delivering wood for Brossard at Fort Mackinaw and that Brossard told him that if he would have it delivered promptly he would make him a present of a suit of clothes; that he afterward asked Brossard where he bought his clothes, and Brossard said at Sol. S. Bateson’s, ,and he replied that he was going there to take his measure for a suit and asked Bateson’s address, which Brossard wrote for him on one of his business cards. A witness Lynch testified that he had heard Brossard and Jones joking about a suit of clothes and asked Brossard if it was a sixty-dollar suit, and Brossard answered No, a thirty-five-dollar suit.

Plaintiff testified that he had told Capt. Jones that if he would get certain wood before navigation closed and deliver it at Detroit and at Fort "Wayne he would make him a present of a suit of clothes; that the. promise had no relation to the delivery of the wood at Mackinaw and that at the time when the promise was made the wood for Mackinaw had already been delivered.

The case was tried before a justice who allowed the set-off, and his judgment was affirmed on *certiorari.*Plaintiff Brings error.

Reversed.

*S. E. Engle*for appellant,

cited as to liability for debts made by third parties: *Pipp v. Reynolds*20 Mich. 88; *Turner v. McCarty*22 Mich. 265; *Halsted v. Francis*31 Mich. 115; *Tyler v. Arnold*47 Mich. 564.

*294
      *Willia/m B. Jaelcson*for appellees.

Marston, J.

This case was tried in -justice’s court, the set-off allowed and judgment rendered against the plaintiff, which on *cerbiora/ri*to the circuit court was affirmed.

There is no evidence tending in even the slightest degree to show that the plaintiff was legally liable for the suit of clothes furnished by the defendants to Capt. Jones. There was no gift of a suit of clothes, no authority given to Capt. Jones to order them and have them charged to the plaintiff, and no written or verbal promise by the plaintiff to pay for them.

The judgments of the circuit and justice’s courts must be reversed with costs of all courts to the plaintiff.

Cooley and Campbell JJ. concurred.