#### Nordyke & Marmon Company, Defendant in Error, v. A. H. Drysdale, Plaintiff in Error.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Sales, § 320 * —what may not be subject of set-off in action for price of goods. In an action to recover for certain automobile *553parts sold and delivered, where the defendant was a seller of plaintiff’s automobiles in a certain territory under a contract with a third party who was also a seller of plaintiff’s automobiles in a certain district, including such territory, under a contract with the plaintiff, held that defendant would not be entitled to set off against plaintiff’s claim a deposit made by him with such third party under his contract with the latter.

*552Error to the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. William K. Whitfield, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 16, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Nordyke & Harmon Company, plaintiff, against A. H. Drysdale, defendant, to recover $131.80 for certain automobile parts shipped by plaintiff to defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Charles C. Le Forges, George W. Black and Thomas W. Samuels, for plaintiff in error.

James S. Baldwin and W. J. Caret, for defendant in error; Weir, Ritter & Richards, of counsel.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Thompson

delivered the opinion of the court.

*553<