
    Williams & Son vs. Wright.
    [Owing to providential cause, Jackson, Chief Justice, did not preside in this case.]
    1. If an agreement was made to extend the time for payment of a draft, if interest should be paid in advance and security be given for the debt, without such payment of interest and giving of security, no extension of time could be claimed ■; and in the absence of any tender or offer thereof, a mere letter in response to a notice to pay, stating that the debtor was relying on the agreement for an extension of time and was ready to comply with its terms, was not sufficient.
    2. Where the defence to an action on a draft was, that an agreement had been made for an extension of time, and the court, after charging that such agreement would be binding if any benefit accrued to the creditor or any injury to the debtors, then said, “ Now What benefit accrued to Wright? (the creditor.) What injury accrued to Williams and Son ?” (the debtors), such charge was not error.
    3. While no ground for reversal appears in this record, we are not satisfied that this case was brought to this court for delay only, and damages are, therefore, denied. ■
    November 28, 1882.
   Crawford, J ustice.  