
    LAUZON v. BELLEMEUMER.
    
    Settlement&emdash;Concltjsiven ess.
    A contract whereby one of the parties agrees to accept a specified amount “in full satisfaction of all claims of every nature” against the other is conclusive as to any existing claim, where there is no evidence of fraud or mutual mistake.
    ' Error to Gogebic; Haire, J.
    Submitted January 29, 1896.
    Decided February 26, 1896.
    
      Assumpsit by Bruno Lauzon against Paul Belleheumer for board and office rent. From' a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings-error.
    Affirmed.
    The defendant was indebted to the plaintiff for board and office rent in the sum of $260.60; unless he is precluded from recovering by. the following agreement of settlement :
    “ Whereas, differences have arisen between Bruno Lauzon and A. Lauzon and P. E. Belleheumer, touching certain alleged misconduct on the part of the said Belleheumer towards the said A. Lauzon: In consideration of the premises, and on condition that the said Lauzon shall release and acknowledge full satisfaction for and on -account of all actions and causes of action which they, or either of them, may have on account of the matter aforesaid, or for or on account of any other matter or thing of any kind or nature, the said Belleheumer agrees to pay to the said Lauzon the sum of $500, the same to be applied on a certain mortgage executed by the said Lauzon and running to said Belleheumer upon certain real estate situate in the city of Ironwood, aforesaid; and, upon the execution of this agreement by said Lauzon and his said wife, the said Belleheumer shall deliver to them his receipt for said sum of $500, to be applied as above set forth; and the said Bruno Lauzon and A. Lauzon, his wife, hereby agree to accept and receive the same in full satisfaction of all claims of every nature as aforesaid.
    “In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hands, the day and year first above written.
    “Bruno Lauzon. “Angelina Lauzon.
    “ Signed and executed in my presence:
    “Frank F. Kutts.”
    At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s proofs, the court directed a verdict for the defendant.
    
      Thomas Kissane and M. M. Riley, for appellant.
    
      Charles E. Miller, for appellee.
    
      
       Rehearing denied May 6, 1896.
    
   Grant, J.

(after stating the facts). The contract, in its express terms, covers the account for which this suit is brought. It is, however, insisted on behalf of the plaintiff, that the account for board and rent was not intended to be settled by this agreement, but only the insult which it is claimed was offered by the defendant to plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff testified that, in the negotiation pending this agreement, nothing was said about this ■account, and it is urged that he had the right to submit to the jury the question of fraud in its execution. Plaintiff testified to no false representations. He admits that the agreement was read to him, and does not claim that any portion of it was suppressed or erroneously read to him. A settlement cannot be set aside upon the ground that one of the parties did not understand it. The agreement upon its face was a clear settlement of all the accounts between the parties up to its date. There was no ambiguity in it, and nothing to be misunderstood. The evidence fails to make out a case of fraud or mutual mistake. The rule governing this case is fully stated in Pratt v. Castle, 91 Mich. 484, 487.

Judgment affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.  