delivered the opinion of the court.
Scovern v. Schevlen, 209 Ill. App. 170 (1917)
Dec. 21, 1917
·
Illinois Appellate Court
·
Gen. No. 22,911
209 Ill. App. 170
James G. Scovern, trading as J. G. Scovern & Company, Appellee, v. Sam Schevlen and Isadore Mackavich, trading as Schevlen Produce Company, Appellants.
Gen. No. 22,911. (Not to be reported in full.)
Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding.
Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.
Affirmed.
Opinion filed December 21, 1917.
Statement of the Case.
Action by James Gf. Scovern, trading as J. G-. Scovem & Company, plaintiff, against Sam Schevlen and Isadore Mackavich, trading as Schevlen Produce Company, defendants. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal.
David Jacobson, for appellants; Alvin E. Stein, of counsel.
Henry B. Spurlock, for appellee.
*171Abstract of the Decision.
1. Partnership, § 51 * —when admissions as to by one partner are admissible. Admissions of a copartnership made by one defendant out of the presence of the other are admissible as to the one making them, in an action against two defendants as co-partners.
2. Partnership, § 32*—what does not affect rights of person dealing with. The fact that there was a corporation of the same name as that of a copartnership was immaterial where the party dealing with the business was ignorant of it and was induced to do business with those engaged in it holding themselves out as partners under that name.
3. Partnership, § 48*—when representations as to existence of are admissible. Representations as to the copartnership of defendants sued as copartners made to others than plaintiff, of which he was ignorant, about the same time as the transactions involved with plaintiff and in similar transactions, was admissible where there was other evidence tending to establish an actual copartnership.