Appeal from, the Superior Court of Cook County.
This case holds that a note given by a son at his father’s request, for the father’s existing debt, and made payable at a future day, is not void for want of consideration, and operated as a suspension of the right of appellee to enforce payment of the debt against the father.
.Reference is made to Underwood v. Hosack, 38 Ill. 208; *289Daniel on Negotiable lusts., Vol. 1, Sec. 185; Parsons on Notes and Bills, Vol. 1, Chap. VI, 2d Ed., p. 195; Thompson v. Gray, 63 Me. 228.
John B. Brady, attorney for appellant.
Samuels & Seligman, attorneys for appellee.