#### Anton Padavic, Appellant, v. Maggie L. Vanderboom, Appellee.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Adams county; the Hon. Axbert Akers, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the April term, 1917.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 11, 1917.

Statement of the Case.

Action by Anton Padavic, plaintiff, against Maggie L. Vanderboom, defendant, to recover on a note which defendant signed as surety for her husband. Prom a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

*601Abstract of the Decision.

1. Bills and notes, § 451 * — when evidence shows payment of note signed by wife as surety for husband by latter. In an action on a promissory note signed by a wife as surety for her husband, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that the note was paid in a transaction in which defendant’s husband sold some property for plaintiff on commission.

2. Alteration of instruments, § 21* — when evidence shows that receipt was not altered. In an action on a promissory note signed by a wife as surety for her husband, evidence held sufficient to sustain a finding that a receipt, signed by plaintiff reciting that it was in full for all claims and notes of defendant and her husband, was in such condition when signed and was not altered after signing, so as to so read.

3. Evidence, § 221* — when evidence of conversation between malcer and payee relating to payment by sale of property on commission is admissible. In an action on a promissory note signed by a wife as surety for her husband, in which it was claimed that the note was paid in a transaction in which the husband sold some property on commission for plaintiff, held that evidence consisting of a recital of a conversation between plaintiff and the deceased husband concerning the sale of such property and the offer made by plaintiff to the husband of what he would give him if he accomplished the sale, was properly admitted on behalf of defendant.

4. Evidence, § 223* — when inadmissible as hearsay. A statement made by the maker of a note to a collector for the payee out of the presence of the surety at the time of presentation of the note for payment, that he would fix the matter with the payee, is purely hearsay as to the surety.

"C. H. Wood, for appellant.

L. H. Berger, for appellee.

*

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

Mr. Presiding Justice Graves

delivered the opinion of the court.