Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

145 Ill. App. 582

Brady v. Koontz

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 17, 1908

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 1908-11-17

Action commenced before justice of the peace. Appeal from the County Court of Shelby county; the Hon. Calvin Green, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the May term, 1908.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1933

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Reversed and remanded · Decided 1908-11-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Mr. Justice Baume

¶1delivered the, opinion of the court.

¶2The appellees, U. A. Brady and Dora Brady, his wife, recovered a verdict and judgment against the appellant, James H. Koontz, in the County Court of Shelby county, for $24.91 for goods, wares and merchandise sold and for labor performed by said appellees to and for appellant.

¶3The judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded,. primarily, because there is no evidence in the case which authorizes a recovery by the appellees jointly. The evidence in the record discloses that appellee, U. A. Brady, at the time of the transactions in question, was engaged in the business of general merchandising, and sold to appellant flour, coffee, corn, knives, plow shares, horse collars and the like, and that appellee, Dora Brady, in addition to performing the ordinary duties of a housewife, did some work in the way of sewing and making women’s garments, and made skirts, waists and dresses for the children of appellant. It is not questioned but that a husband and wife may form a partnership and transact business as .partners, but such relation does not exist merely by virtue of the marriage of the parties, and can only be created by special contract.

¶4No contract partnership relation is shown to have existed between appellees. It is merely claimed on their behalf that each was interested in the work and business of the other by virtue of their relation as husband and wife. In this state of the record it is clear that appellees had no joint interest or right respecting the transactions involved as authorized their joinder as plaintiffs in the action.

¶5The judgment of the County Court wall be reversed and the cause remanded.

¶6Reversed and remanded.

/145/illapp/582 · .json · Public domain