
    HOFFMAN VS. HOLLAND.
    AITEAL FROM THE COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT, JUDGE BUCHANAN PRESIDING.
    The acknowledgment of the father to pay the note of his son was Indirect, and failed to satisfy the district judge of his liability, and this court did not feel authorized to disturb the judgment.
    This is an action against the father, on the promissory note of the son, for blacksmith’s work done for the benefit of the father’s livery stable.
    There was a general denial and want of amicable demand pleaded. The plaintiff’s witness slates that he called on the father and son for payment; that the father, after several evasive answers, said he supposed he was responsible, and would go the next morning and see the plaintiff, and settle the note with him. The district judge deemed this evidence insufficient to charge the father with the amount of the son’s note, and gave judgment for the defendant.
    The plaintiff appealed.
    
      Greiner, for the plaintiff.
    
      Elwyn, contra.
    
   Eustis, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit for the recovery of the amount of a promissory note given by the defendant’s son, as is alleged, for work done in repairing' carriages, and other blacksmith’s work in the livery stable of the defendant. The evidence shows, that the livery stable was kept by the son, and the liability of the defendant rests solely on an acknowledgment of the debt, which, it is charged, is binding on him. This acknowledgment is testified to by the attorney for the plaintiff; and as the judge of the court below did not consider it sufficiently positive and free from uncertainty to establish the liability of the defendant, we do not feel ourselves authorized to disturb his decision.

It is, therefore, ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the District Court be affirmed, with costs in both courts.  