#### George M. Poe, Defendant in Error, v. Solomon Pevsner, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 17,579.

Parent and child—liability of parent for goods obtained by child. Where a son obtains rings from a dealer, a postal card message sent to the dealer by the father that he had sold the rings and would make it good, establishes the father’s liability, irrespective of a question of the agency of the son in procuring them.

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October, term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 3, 1912.

Shulman & Shulman, for plaintiff in error; E. N. Zoline, of counsel.

John K. PrindvhjLE, for defendant in error.

*395Mr. 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.