#### Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, Defendant in Error, v. Mrs. H. M. Newbold, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,702.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § 325 * —when burden of proof is on seller to prove price at which goods are sold. While the burden of proving payment is on the defendant where he admits the receipt of goods and the price claimed by plaintiff and interposes a defense that payment has been made, yet where the price to be paid for the goods is in dispute, the burden of proving the price at which the goods were sold is upon the plaintiff.

Error to the Municipal Court Of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph E. Ryan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed January 17, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the Peter Schoenhofen Brewing Company, a corporation, plaintiff, against Mrs. H. M. Newbold, defendant, to recover for goods sold and delivered. From a judgment for plaintiff for the amount of its claim, $558, defendant brings error.

Timothy J. Fell, for plaintiff in error; Hermann P, Haase, of counsel.

James J. Kelly, for defendant in error; John A. Burke, of counsel.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vois. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.