#### Max Cohn et al., Defendants in Error, v. Morris Cohen, Plaintiff in Error.

Gen. No. 22,151.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.

Reversed.

Opinion filed March 20, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Max Cohn and others, plaintiffs, against Morris Cohen, defendant, to recover for services rendered in moving defendant’s furniture, in which defendant’s affidavit of merits charged plaintiffs with negligence in such moving and damages resulting therefrom to a certain amount, and a mutual agreement of settlement of all claims by release and discharge arising out of the transaction. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant brings error.

*406Abstract of the Decision.

1. Contracts, § 385 * —when evidence is insufficient to sustain verdict for plaintiffs in action to recover for services rendered. In the absence of any evidence offered by the plaintiffs in support of their action, and upon the uncontradicted evidence offered by the defendant in support of his defense, held that a judgment for the plaintiffs was erroneous in an action to recover for services rendered in moving furniture.

2. Contracts, § 70*—what is valid consideration for promise. A promise constitutes a valid consideration for a promise.

B. M. Shaffner, for plaintiff in error.

Isidore Fried, for defendants in error.

*

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

Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.