
    BETSEY COOPER, Claimant against the Estate of William Cooper, Deceased, Respondent, v. MARY TURNER, Heir of said Deceased, Appellant.
    
      Contract—promise to pay—when not implied.
    
    William Cooper was a single man, and his mother, who was a widow, resided with him on a farm after he became of age, and kept house for him. After his death, she presented a claim against his estate containing a number of items, one of which was for services rendered by her as his house-keeper. There was no agreement between them that she should be paid for such services. The surrogate allowed the item. Held, that it was improperly allowed; that under such circumstances, the law would not imply an agreement to pay wages.’
    Appeal from the decree of a surrogate.
    
      Wm. C. Johnson, for the appellant.
    
      Humphrey & Lockwood, for the respondent.
   Opinion by Mullin, P. J.

Decree reversed, and proceedings remitted to surrogate with ' directions to rehear the case, costs to abide event.  