
    William G. Kase, Admr. v. Sarah Painter.
    Maiiried woman—right to recover for her enrnivgs. A married woman may recover in her own name for her services rendered since the passage of the act of 1869, giving her earnings to her, but not for services rendered before that law took effect.
    Writ or Error to the Circuit Court of St. Clair county; the Hon. William H. Snyder, Judge, presiding.
    This was a claim filed by Sarah Painter against the estate of Ruth McLaughlin, deceased, for services rendered the deceased both prior to and since the act of 1869. giving married women their earnings. The claim was originally filed in the county court, and taken by appeal to the circuit court. The claimant was a married woman.
    In the circuit court, the claimant, by leave of court, filed the following amended account:
    
      Estate of Ruth McLaughlin,
    
    
      To Sarah Rainier, Dr.
    
    For housework and housekeeping for deceased during 1868 and 1869,at $250 per annum... $500.00
    Nursing and constant attention during sickness to time of death, from March 15, 18,70, to June 6, 1871, 64 weeks, at $20 per week 1280.00
    
      For food and board furnished during last named period.................'................... $160.00
    For cleaning house after death, and taking care of furniture after death, to day of administrator’s sale....................................... 42.00
    Total due.......................... $1982.00
    A trial was had, resulting in a verdict and judgment in favor of the claimant for $1056. and costs, from which judgment the administrator of the estate prosecutes this writ of error.
    Mr. William G. Kase, and Messrs. Wilderman & Hamill, for the plaintiff in error.
    Messrs. C. W. & E. L. Thomas, for the defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice Breese

delivered the opinion of the Court:

There is but a single point of law raised on this record, and that is, as to the services claimed to have been rendered prior to 1869. In that year a law was passed by the General Assembly giving the earnings of a wife to the wife. The plaintiff* in this action was a married woman at the time the services were rendered to the deceased in 1869, but. eliminating from the amount claimed these earnings, there is proof sufficient, to sustain the verdict, as rendered.

It is urged, the verdict is contrary to the evidence. We can not say this. There was conflicting testimony, and we can not say the jury erred in settling the matter as they did. They had a better opportunity to judge, of the testimony .than we can have. There is no doubt plaintiff rendered important services to this feeble old lady, and should have reasonable compensation therefor. The' jury have thought the amount they have allowed was reasonable, under the evidence, and we can not say they have so erred as to justify the interference of this court.

The judgment is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed,.  