
    Alvah E. Leavitt v. The Judge of the Superior Court of Detroit.
    
      Mwndamm to enforce stipulation to settle ease.
    
    Mandamus does not lie to enforce a disputed stipulation to settle a case oven though money has been paid thereunder. The parties to the stipulation are entitled to have the fact as to the settlement tried ou a regular issue before a jury; and if the validity of the stipulation is contested it should be brought into the case by plea and not by motion.
    Mandamus.
    Submitted Feb. 5.
    Denied Feb. 6.
    
      F. A. Baker and H. M. Gheever for tbe writ.
    
      ■Stewart & Galloway against.
   Per curiam.

Delators ask a mandamus the purpose of wbicb is to give effect to a stipulation signed by tbe parties to a litigation pending in tbe Superior Court of the city of Detroit, and wbicb was to settle and discontinue such litigation. It seems that a sum of money was paid when tbe stipulation was signed, but tbe party receiving tbe money claims that bis signature was improperly obtained, .■and be refuses to abide by it, though be has not returned the money. Delators claim that tbe stipulation is not successfully impeached, and they also claim that it is affirmed by tbe money not being returned. Tbe judge of the Superior Court refused to give effect to tbe stipulation by directing a discontinuance to be entered.

The case is a peculiar one and involves somewhat complicated facts, but we agree with respondent that the questions arising could not be determined’in favor of the relators on .a summary bearing. The parties were entitled to have tbe question of the settlement tried upon a regular issue, and to ,submit tbe issue to a jury if they' saw fit to do so. The stipulation, if its validity was contested, should be brought into tbe case by plea ; not by motion.

Writ denied.  