
    Max Braude et al., trading as Braude Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Louis Vehon, trading as Louis Vehon & Brother, Defendant in Error.
    Gen. No. 21,724.
    (Not to be reported in full.)
    Abstract of the Decision.
    1. Compositions with creditors—when burden of proving compliance with agreement on defendant. In an action for goods sold and delivered, where the defendant set up as a defense a creditor’s compromise agreement signed by the plaintiffs, held that the burden was on the defendant of proving his compliance therewith.
    2. Compositions with creditors—when evidence insufficient to show compliance with agreement. Evidence in an action ‘wherein a compromise agreement was set up as a defense, held to show that the defendant had not made payment to the plaintiffs within the time fixed by the agreement.
    
      Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Patrick B. Flanagan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.
    Reversed and judgment here with finding of facts.
    Opinion filed October 10, 1916.
    Statement of the Case.
    Action by Max Braude, Simon Braude and Benjamin Braude, trading as Braude Brothers, plaintiffs, against Louis Vehon, trading as Louis Vehon & Brother, defendant, for goods sold and delivered by the plaintiffs to the defendant. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs prosecute a writ of error.
    Fleming D. Hedges and J. C. DeWolfe, for plaintiffs in error; Fleming D. Hedges and Earl J. Smith, of counsel.
    Cratty Bros. & Flatau, for defendant in error.
   Mr. Justice McDonald

delivered the opinion of the court.

3. Compositions with creditors—how original debt revived. Where a debtor fails to pay the agreed percentage of a claim'within the time fixed therefor in a creditor’s compromise agreement, the original debt is revived and the full amount thereof may be recovered by the creditor.  