#### Clara C. Hendrickson, Defendant in Error, v. Oscar R. Hendrickson, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 21,455.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph P. Rafferty, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1915.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed April 10, 1916.

Rehearing denied April 24, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Clara C. Hendrickson, plaintiff, against Oscar R. Hendrickson, defendant, on a judgment note signed by defendant. From a judgment for $334.08 on such note in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error.

The making of the note by defendant, who was plaintiff’s husband, and the delivery to her was not denied. Defendant contended that plaintiff was in ill health, and upon her saying “that she wanted something to protect her for her funeral expenses,” he gave the note to her “to pacify her.” On the other hand, plaintiff testified that the consideration for the. note was money which she had loaned to the defendant. Her testimony was that she received no allowance from her husband for personal expenses, and during their married life she had worked for a time in a laundry, had kept roomers, that she had received from a daughter payment for board and washing, and that she kept an account of her own moneys in the State Bank of Chicago; that it was from her own money thus accumulated that she made the advances to her husband, who borrowed the money for the purpose of buying a lot. It also appeared that when she was married she had something over $200 of her own. The husband, testifying, did not deny that he received this money from his wife, and the evidence showed that the amount of *443the note represented only a portion of the advances made by plaintiff to defendant.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Husband and wm:, § 207 * —when evidence sufficient as basis ■for action by wife against husband on judgment note. In an action on judgment note by a wife against her husband alleged to have been given for advances, held under all the evidence that plaintiff was entitled to maintain her action.

2. Husband and wm:, § 207*—when uñfe may sue husband on contract. Under Hurd’s Rev. St., ch. 68, secs. 1, 8 (J. & A. 6138, 6145), in force July 1, 1874, a husband or wife may sue the other on all contracts except for services rendered to each other.

Albert H. Fry, for plaintiff in error.

No appearance for defendant in error.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely

delivered the opinion of the court.