Poe v. Pevsner

Appellate Court of Illinois

Poe v. Pevsner

175 Ill. App. 394, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 164

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedDecember 3, 1912

DocketGen. No. 17,579

StatusPublished

This text of 175 Ill. App. 394 (Poe v. Pevsner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Poe v. Pevsner, 175 Ill. App. 394, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 164 (Ill. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant for the value of two rings delivered to the latter’s son. The sole question argued is that the evidence does not establish the agency of the son to procure them. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that the defendant, a few days after the rings were obtained, sent a postal card to the plaintiff saying, “Tour two rings I sold to Charlie Hertenstein for $350, * * * an'd I will make it good,” he is in no position to claim that he did not authorize his son to get them. This evidence not having been denied it alone justified the court’s finding of liability, and, therefore, the question of agency becomes academic and need not be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. Justice Barnes

delivered the opinion of the court.

In this case plaintiff recovered a judgment against defendant for the value of two rings delivered to the latter’s son. The sole question argued is that the evidence does not establish the agency of the son to procure them. Inasmuch as it appears from the record that the defendant, a few days after the rings were obtained, sent a postal card to the plaintiff saying, “Tour two rings I sold to Charlie Hertenstein for $350, * * * an'd I will make it good,” he is in no position to claim that he did not authorize his son to get them. This evidence not having been denied it alone justified the court’s finding of liability, and, therefore, the question of agency becomes academic and need not be considered.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 Ill. App. 394, 1912 Ill. App. LEXIS 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poe-v-pevsner-illappct-1912.