
    Cooley A. Griffin vs. Morris Kutinsky et als.
    First Judicial District, Hartford,
    January Term, 1910.
    Baldwin, C. J., Hall, Prentice, Thayer and Roraback, Js.
    The purchaser of merchandise is alone responsible for its price, in the absence of evidence that it was bought by him for others for whom he was authorized to act.
    The declarations of the purchaser that he was buying for others are not competent evidence against them, unless they have by their acts or conduct estopped themselves from denying his statements.
    Argued January 4th
    decided January 18th, 1910.
    Action to recover for tobacco alleged to have been sold to the defendant Case for and on account of the other defendants, brought to the Superior Court in Litchfield County where the plaintiff was nonsuited in a trial to the jury before George W. Wheeler, J., from which judgment he appealed.
    
      No error.
    
    
      Theodore M. Maltbie and William M. Maltbie, for the appellant (plaintiff).
    
      William F. Henney and Hugh M. Alcorn, for the appellees (defendants other than Case).
   Thayer, J.

This case, and the preceding one of Coe v. Kutinsky et als., the same defendants, were argued together before us, and for the most part present similar questions. The pleadings are substantially the same.

Evidence of declarations by Case, that he was acting for others than himself in making the purchase of the plaintiff’s tobacco, were excluded. The argeement, Exhibit A, between Case and Kutinsky, Adler & Company, after, being excluded, was, at the close of the trial, admitted pro forma by the trial court, after which a nonsuit was granted, and judgment was rendered in favor of the defendants Kutinsky, Adler & Company.

In the present case it appears from the evidence that the plaintiff's tobacco was purchased by Case ten days before the agreement between him and Kutinsky, Adler & Company was executed. The credit was given to Case. The •agreement, although in evidence, did not tend to prove that the plaintiff's tobacco was purchased for Kutinsky, Adler & Company. There was no other evidence which tended to prove that it was purchased for them. The nonsuit was therefore properly granted. _ .

The declarations of Case, for.the reasons stated in the preceding case as to similar declarations, were inadmissible to prove his agency or partnership with the other defendants in this transaction, and they were properly excluded.

There is no error. .

In this opinion the other judges concurred.  