
    George Abbott vs. Charles A. Winchester & another, administrators.
    A promissory note made and given by a husband to his wife before their marriage become» a nullity on the marriage, and is not revived by the death of the husband.
    Contract against the administrators of the estate of Rodolphus Converse, on a promissory note made by him, dated August 25,1856, and payable on demand to Maria Clark or order. The note was given in payment for services rendered to the maker by the payee ; and was left in the hands of the attesting witness, for the benefit of the payee. The maker and payee intermarried, September 24, 1856. After the marriage, the note remained in the hands of the witness for some time, and then was delivered to the maker, who held it for the benefit of the payee some years, and until a few weeks before his death, when he delivered it to her. She then for the first time had the note in her personal possession. After her husband’s death she indorsed the note to the plaintiff. The case was submitted on the above facts, to the judgment of the superior court, and, on appeal, of this court.
    
      M. P. Knowlton, for the plaintiff.
    
      O. A. Winchester, for the defendants, was not called upon.
   Chapman, C. J.

The note in suit was given by Rodolphus Converse, the defendants’ intestate, to Maria Clark, August 25, 1856. It was given in payment for services rendered to the maker by the payee, and was left in the hands of the attesting witness. On the 24th of the following month the parties intermarried ; and sometime afterwards it was delivered to the maker, who kept it for the benefit of his wife till a few weeks before his death.

The principle stated in Chapman v. Kellogg, 102 Mass. 246, must govern this case. The note became a mere nullity, and could not be revived by the death of the husband.

Judgment for the defendants.  