
    Barnes vs. Moore, Marsh & Company.
    [Jackson, Justice, was providentially prevented from presiding in this ease.]
    If a mortgagor, having the money to pay off the incumbrance (the debt being past due), and intending so to apply it, changes his mind, and concludes to expend it and does expend it in purchasing goods of the mortgagee, upon a parol agreement by the latter to indulge him on the mortgage for another year, and to extend to him a limited credit for other goods to be subsequently sold to him within that period, this agreement does not become a part of the mortgage contract, but is separate and distinct from it, and damages alleged to have resulted from a breach of the agreement in refusing to sell goods on a credit as stipulated, cannot, by way of recoupment (that mode of defense being the only one offered or insisted upon), be applied in reduction of the mortgage debt, on a rule to foreclose.
   Bleckley, Justice.  