
    Belknap,
    June 7, 1904.
    Cox v. Cox.
    Evidence that money held by a married woman to hor separate nso was delivered to her hnsband at his request for the purpose of paying his indebtedness to a third person, that she considered the funds to be borrowed, expected them to bo repaid, and did not know how he could entertain an opposite view, warrants a finding of-a mutual understanding between the parties that the transaction, was a loan.
    Assumpsit, for money Had and received and for money loaned. Trial by jury and verdict for tbe plaintiff. Transferred from tbe November term, 1903, of tbe superior court by Peaslee, J.
    The defendant is the plaintiff’s husband. The evidence bearing on the question transferred is stated in the opinion. The defendant’s motion for a nonsuit was denied, and he excepted.
    
      Jewett Plummer, for the plaintiff.
    
      Beekford Hibbard, for the defendant.
   Bingham, J.

The question presented in this case is not whether a promise can or cannot be implied as a matter of law from the mere fact of benefits received (Concord Coal Co. v. Ferrin, 71 N. H. 33, 36), nor whether the law will or will not presume from the delivery of money that the transaction was a loan, rather than a gift or the payment of a debt (Coburn v. Storer, 67 N. H. 86, 87), but is whether there was any evidence from which the jury could reasonably infer that it was a loan.

There was evidence that in 1898 the plaintiff received from her sister’s estate $525, which under our statute she was entitled to hold to her separate use, free from the interference or control of the defendant (P. 8., e. 176, s. 1; Clough v. Russell, 55 N. H. 279; Houston v. Clark, 50 N. H. 479, 482); that the defendant had previously purchased a farm for a home, which was subject to a mortgage; that at the time in question there was due on the mortgage debt about $1,300; that at the defendant’s request the plaintiff let him have the $525 received from the sister’s estate, for the purpose of making a payment on this debt; that she understood it was a loan, expected the money would be repaid, and did not know how the defendant could understand it in any other way.

From this evidence the jury could find that there was a mutual understanding between the husband and wife that the transaction was a loan. Bickford v. Dane, 58 N. H. 185, 186; Page v. Snell, 59 N. H. 531; Clark v. Sanborn, 68 N. H. 411, 412. The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied.

Exception overruled.

.All concurred.  