John Forrest, Executor, Defendant in Error, v. John F. Delaney, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,161.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Harry- Olson, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1916.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed December 18, 1916.

Statement of the Case.

Action by John Forrest, executor of the estate of Francis Forrest, deceased, plaintiff, against John F. Delaney, defendant, on a promissory note. To review a judgment for plaintiff, defendant prosecutes a writ of error.

The defense was want of title in plaintiff to the note in suit. The maker of the note was the defendant. The payee was Mrs. Annie Forrest. It was dated May 6, 1914, payable five months after date, and indorsed as follows:

“Pay to the order of John Forrest. F. A. Forrest, husband of Annie Forrest, now deceased. John Forrest, Executor of the Estate of Francis A. Forrest, deceased. John Forrest.”

Annie Forrest predeceased her husband, Francis Forrest. Administration was granted upon her estate by the Probate Court of Cook county. On June 17, 1915, an order was entered in her estate finding inter alia that said deceased left her surviving her husband, Francis Forrest, and no children her surviving; that said Francis Forrest has since died; that his estate is in course of administration in said court; that all of the assets of the estate were in the possession of the executor of the estate of Francis Forrest, deceased; that the best interests of both estates can be conserved by and through the administration of the estate of Francis Forrest; and ordering that the administratrix *229of the wife’s estate be excused from filing an inventory, making publication for claims, and discharging the administratrix from further duty. Proof of grant of letters testamentary to John Forrest upon the estate of Francis Forrest was also made.

B. Gr. Neville, for plaintiff in error.

Frank H. Bowen, for defendant in error.

Abstract of the Decision.

Bills and notes, § 319 * —when evidence shows title to note in plaintiff. Where, in an action on a promissory note made by the defendant, the evidence showed that the payee thereof had died intestate leaving her husband but no children surviving, that the note was indorsed by her husband to the plaintiff, who, on the husband’s death, became his executor, that an order in the administration of the payee’s estate had been made discharging her administratrix and ordering that her estate be administered by the plaintiff, in whose hands all the assets of such estate had come, held that the defendant’s contention that the plaintiff had not shown such title to the notes as would entitle him to maintain suit was untenable.