Poppers v. Wagner

Appellate Court of Illinois

Poppers v. Wagner

33 Ill. App. 113, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 463

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMay 8, 1889

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 33 Ill. App. 113 (Poppers v. Wagner) 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

Poppers v. Wagner, 33 Ill. App. 113, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 463 (Ill. Ct. App. 1889).

Pincite

Opinion

Gary, J.

This was an action of trespass by the appellee against the appellant for an entry by, as alleged, servants of appellant, into the dwelling of appellee and taking his goods. The wife of the appellee was alone at the time the alleged trespassers came, and was, against the objection and over an exception taken by appellant, admitted as a competent witness, to testify to what then happened, upon the ground, apparently, that while she was in the control of the furniture, in the absence of her husband, the acts of wrongdoers in her presence affecting the furniture, were, in the language of the statute, lCmatters of business transactions, where the transactions were had and conducted by such married woman as the agent of her husband.”

This was error. She, as agent, conducted no business. Being a spectator conferred upon her no more the character of an agent, as to the acts she witnessed, than it would have done upon any other spectator, and the control of the furniture by her in the absence of her husband, was a circumstance wholly extrinsic to, and independent of, the acts of the alleged trespassers. The acts were not a transaction had and conducted by her. East St. Louis v. O’Flynn, 19 Ill. App. 64; White v. Chancy, 20 Mo. App. 389; Baxter v. B. & W. R. R., 102 Mass. 383. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remtmded.

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

Gary, J.

This was an action of trespass by the appellee against the appellant for an entry by, as alleged, servants of appellant, into the dwelling of appellee and taking his goods. The wife of the appellee was alone at the time the alleged trespassers came, and was, against the objection and over an exception taken by appellant, admitted as a competent witness, to testify to what then happened, upon the ground, apparently, that while she was in the control of the furniture, in the absence of her husband, the acts of wrongdoers in her presence affecting the furniture, were, in the language of the statute, lCmatters of business transactions, where the transactions were had and conducted by such married woman as the agent of her husband.”

This was error. She, as agent, conducted no business. Being a spectator conferred upon her no more the character of an agent, as to the acts she witnessed, than it would have done upon any other spectator, and the control of the furniture by her in the absence of her husband, was a circumstance wholly extrinsic to, and independent of, the acts of the alleged trespassers. The acts were not a transaction had and conducted by her. East St. Louis v. O’Flynn, 19 Ill. App. 64; White v. Chancy, 20 Mo. App. 389; Baxter v. B. & W. R. R., 102 Mass. 383. The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remtmded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ill. App. 113, 1888 Ill. App. LEXIS 463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/poppers-v-wagner-illappct-1889.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack