#### J. W. Hoodwin Company, Appellee, v. A. E. Pinkerton, et al. On appeal of A. E. Pinkerton and R. R. Pinkerton, Appellants.

Gen. No. 22,713.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. John A. Mahoney, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed March 12, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by the J. W. Hoodwin Company, a corporation, plaintiff, ag’ainst A. E. Pinkerton, R. R. Pinkerton and J. W. Rankin, defendants, to recover fifty dollars paid by plaintiff to a party claimed to have been an ag’ent of the defendants. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants A. E. Pinkerton and R. R. Pinkerton appeal.

The action was brought against these defendants and Matt W. Pinkerton, upon whose death the action was discontinued as to him. Plaintiff claimed it was induced to pay the sum of fifty dollars to Henry E. Failer upon his representation that he was agent for Pinkerton & Company, U. S. Detective Agency, and that said agency was the same company as the Pinkerton National Detective Agency. Matt W. Pinkerton of the former agency was the husband of A. E. Pinkerton and father of R. R. Pinkerton, and used their names on the letterhead of his agency.

George H. Mason, for appellants.

No appearance for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.

*299Abstract of the Decision.

Partnership, § 52*—when evidence is insufficient to show. Evidence held insufficient to show that certain defendants, appellants, were connected in any way, as partners or otherwise, with a certain detective agency, to an agent of which plaintiff paid a certain sum of money, in an action to recover such money.