#### H. Laskey, Defendant in Error, v. Samuel Mendelson and Benjamin Mendelson, trading as Mendelson Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 20,590.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La Buy, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 8, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Action by H. Laskey, plaintiff, against Samuel Mendelson and Benjamin Mendelson, trading as Mendel-son Brothers, defendants, to recover the purchase price of goods alleged to have been sold defendants.

Defendants’ offer of evidence tending to show that the goods had been sold to other than defendants was objected to by plaintiff on the ground that the affidavit of defense contained nothing concerning a sale to another than defendants and the objection" was sustained.

■Judgment was rendered for plaintiff and to reverse the judgment, defendants prosecute this writ of error.

*598Abstract of the Decision.

Pleading, § 28 * —when statement of evidence in affidavit of defense not required. In an action for the purchase price of goods alleged to have been sold, it is error to refuse to permit defendants to introduce testimony tending to show that the goods were sold to another than defendants, even though the affidavit of defense did not set up the sale to other than defendants.

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiffs in error; Julius Moses and Sigmund W. David, of counsel.

Isadore S. Blumenthal, for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, «w»« topic and section number.

Mr. Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.