As between husband and wife, there is not only a presumption that mutual services are gratuitous,1 but in many jurisdictions an express promise to make compensation therefor is unenforceable as against public policy.2 Thus a contract whereby a husband agrees to pay his wife for services,3 even if not performed at their home, but in business,4 or a contract whereby a wife agrees to support her husband5 are void.

E. 604; Hill v. Hill, 121 Ind. 255; 23 X. E. 87; McGarvey v. Roods,

73 la. 363; 35 N. W. 488; Cowan v. Musgrave, 73 la. 384; 35 N. W. 496; Spitzmiller v. Fisher, 77 la. 289; 42 N. W. 197; Coleman v. Simpson, 2 Dana (Ky.) 166; Bix-ler v. Sellman, 77 Md. 494; 27 Atl. 137; Harris v. Harris, 106 Mich. 246; 64 X. W. 15; Harris v. Smith, 79 Mich. 54; 6 L. R. A. 702; 44 X. W. 169; Allen v. Allen, 60 Mich. 635; 27 X. W. 702; Baxter v. Gale,

74 Minn. 36; 76 N. W. 954; Louder v. Hart, 52 Mo. App. 377; Callahan v. Riggins, 43 Mo. App. 130; Woods v. Land, 30 Mo. App. 176; Moore v. Moore, 58 Neb. 268; 78 N. W. 495; Clark v. Sanborn, 68 X. H. 411; 36 Atl. 14; Barhites' Appeal, 126 Pa.

404; 17 Atl. 617; Newell v. Lawton, 20 R. I. 307; 38 Atl. 946; Murphy v. Murphy, 1 S. D. 316; 9 L. R. A. 820; 47 X. W. 142; Beale v. Hall, 97 Va. 383; 34 S. E. 53; Riley v. Riley, 38 W. Va. 283; 18 S. E. 569; Ellis v. Cary, 74 Wis. 176; 17 Am. St. Rep. 125; 4 L. R. A. 55; 42 N. W. 252.

2 Tank v. Rohweder, 98 la. 154; 67 X. W. 106.

1 Lapworth v. Leach, 79 Mich. 16; 44 X. W. 338.

2 See Sec. 426.

3Kedey v. Petty, 153 Ind. 179; 54 X. E. 798; Michigan Trust Co. v. Chapin, 106 Mich. 384; 58 Am. St. Rep. 490; 64 X. W. 334; Coleman v. Burr, 93 X. Y. 17; 45 Am. Rep. 160; In re Collister, 153 X. Y.