
    S. A. Smith v. Hugh Ryan, et al.
    Evidence — Receipt of Wife.
    A paper purporting to be a receipt of the wife is not admissible in evidence in the absence of evidence to show that sbe was authorized by her husband to receive the money, or that if received by her it was with his knowledge and consent.
    APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
    
      Russell & Helm, for appellant.
    
    
      Kahn & Baker, for appellees.
    
    January 16, 1880.
   Opinion by

Judge Hines:

We are of the opinion that the court did not err in refusing to allow the paper purporting to be a receipt by Mrs. Ryan to be read to the jury. There is nothing in the case to show that she waá authorized by her husband to receive the money, or that if received it was with his knowledge and consent. The only fact looking in that direction is the suggestion made to Mrs. Ryan by her husband that she ought to settle with Smith. If there was no authority, as we think appears, to sign such a paper, the affidavit of Ryan and wife was clearly incompetent, or at least immaterial, as in the absence of the authority to sign the receipt it is useless to inquire into the genuineness of the signature to it.

There appears to be no error in giving or refusing instructions.

Judgment 'affirmed.  