
    Edward Merritt vs. James Seacord.
    A parol settlement of a suit between the parties, held good, to defeat a motion for judgment as in case of non-suit.
    
      Motion by defendant for judgment as in case of non-suit.—This is an action of ejectment; issue joined May, 1842. The cause has never been noticed for trial. A circuit court was held in November last, in Westchester county, where the venue is laid ; and younger issues at said circuit were tried. Defendant’s attorney states that the cause has never been settled or arranged in any manner to his knowledge or belief, between the parties ; and that he has never consented to any settlement or arrangement of said cause, as attorney for the defendant. On the part of the plaintiff it appears that this suit, together with all other matters in difference between the plaintiff and defendant, -were submitted by agreement to one Tonlice and Purdy for settlement, and Tonlice and Purdy agreed how the parties ought to settle; and named to them the terms, to which they agreed ; the plaintiff then stated that this suit was abandoned ; this was in the fall of 1842. It appears the settlement afqresaid between the parties was all done by parol. And the defendant’s counsel insisted that a parol settlement or agreement to settle was not binding.
    J. W. Tompkins, Defts Atty. M. Mitchell, Plffs Atty.
    
   Nelson, Chief Justice.

Held the settlement good, and denied the motion with costs, and ordered the suit to be discontinued.

Rule accordingly.  