
    John C. Siemer, Respondent, v. Rudolph Federall, Appellant.
    
      Testimony warranting a justice of the peace in finding that a defendant was liable for goods furnished under the order of a third party.
    
    Testimony held sufficient to warrant a finding by a justice of the peace that a defendant was liable for paint put upon his house, where the paint was furnished pursuant to an arrangement with the defendant, under which the painter, whom the defendant had employed to paint the house, procured the paint from the plaintiff upon an order from a brewing company of which the brother-in-law of the owner of the house was the proprietor.
    App'eal by the defendant, Rudolph Federall, from a judgment of the County Court of Richmond county in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the cleric of the county of Richmond on the 20th day of April, 1897, affirming a judgment of a justice of the peace.-
    The action was brought to recover the value of certain paint alleged to have been sold and delivered to the defendant by the plaintiff.
    
      W. J. Powers, for the appellant.
    
      JBenjamm Steber, for the respondent.
   Per Curiam:

The evidence in this case is quite meagre. But enough appears to show that the defendant authorized the painter, employed by him to paint his house, to obtain paint for that purpose from the plaintiff. The painter testified that in pursuance of an arrangement with the defendant he obtained an order from the Bachman Brewing Company, the proprietor of which was a brother-in-law of the defendant, upon which he procured the paint, and that the same was put upon the defendant’s house. Other witnesses corroborated the statement that the paint was obtained and placed upon the house. A bookkeeper of the brewing company testified that he was in the. habit of signing orders for paint to be used upon the defendant’s dwelling.

The defendant denied the existence of an arrangement with the painter to obtain the paint; testified that he had paid for the paint used upon his house and denied that he had authorized any one to obtain the paint mentioned in the bill upon his credit. We think that this evidence, although meagre, was sufficient to support the finding by the justice that the paint was delivered to the 'defendant in pursuance of an arrangement made by him, in consequence of which liability was created against him therefor. The bill for the paint, taken in connection with the verification of the same by the plaintiff and the statement made to the justice as set forth in his return, was sufficient to constitute the same a complaint. It stated informally a cause of action. There does not appear to have been any contest over the amount of the bill or the prices which were charged. Ro motion was made for a nonsuit, or other question raised beyond the denial of authorization by the defendant to purchase the paint upon his credit. While the proceedings were quite informal and the proof somewhat meagre, yet it is such informality and meagreness as is frequently met with in Justices’ Courts. It is sufficient now to say that the record is not destitute of proof tending to establish a cause of action in plaintiff’s favor, and, therefore, a case was made for the justice to determine, and his determination is conclusive.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred.

Judgment of the County Court affirmed, with costs.  