
    Abigail Winslow vs. Daniel Driskell.
    Evidence that neither of the parties to a deed understood its legal effect and operation a the time of its delivery is inadmissible to defeat the deed.
    Writ of entry to. recover a life estate in the premises described in the writ. Trial before Thomas, J., who signed the following bill of exceptions:
    “ The demandant produced a lease of the premises made to her by the tenant for and during the term of her natural life; and proved its execution. The tenant then admitted that there was the usual delivery of the instrument; but contended that there was no legal delivery in this case, for the reason that neither oí the parties understood the legal effect of the instrument, or its operation; and offered to prove such to be the fact. But the court ruled such testimony to be incompetent, and instructed the jury to find a verdict for the demandant. And the tenant excepts.”
    
      J. C. Stone, for the tenant.
    
      R. C. Pitman, for the demandant, was stopped by the court.
   By the Court.

Nothing is better settled than the rule which precludes a party from proving that he misunderstood the legal effect of a written contract, which has been duly executed and delivered by him, where there is no allegation of fraud by which he was misled or deceived. Exceptions overruled.  