
    JOHN POTEAT vs. THOMAS BADGET.
    Where one party offers to pay or give the other a certain sum by way of compromise, and the offer is rejected, it is in no way obligatory— Nor is it an admission of the fact that the defendant owed the sum offered. When a proposition of that kind is rejected, the rights of the parties remain precisely as they were before it was made.
    This was an action of assumRsit, in which the plaintiff declared in two counts, one on a quantum valebat for, the use and occupation by the defendant of the plaintiff’s tenant, the other, on a promise of the defendant to pay the plaintiff fifty dollars for such use and occupation. Upon the trial at Caswell, on the last circuit before his Honor Settle, Judge, the plaintiff was forced to abandon his first count because of its being shewn that the occupation was under a special agreement, the terms whereof had been by him broken, and then resorted to his second counti The only evidence offered to sustain this count was¡ that a dispute having arisen between the parties in relation to their rights growing out of this agreement and occupation, the plaintiff proposed to refer the matter in dispute to arbitration; that the defendant, rejected this proposition, but offered to pay or give the plaintiff fifty dollars; that the plaintiff returned no answer to this offer, but on leaving the defendant declared his dissatisfaction therewith, and afterwards instituted this action, in which he sought to recover a much larger sum. His Honor declared his opinion that this evidence did not sustain the count in question, to which opinion the plaintiff excepted, The defendant obtained a verdict and had judgment, and thereupon the plaintiff appealed.
    June 1839
    No counsel appeared for the plaintiff in this court.
    
      W. A. Graham for the defendant.’
   GastoN, Judge,

after stating the case as above, proceeded as follows: We approve of the opinion expressed by his Honor. The offer of the defendant unless accepted by the plaintiff, was in no way obligatory. Neither was it an admission of the fact that the defendant owed the sum of fifty dollars. In all fairness it must be understood with reference to the subject matter before the parties, which was an attempt to adjust a disputed claim. It was a proposition, whether that claim- were well or ill founded, to pay a specific sum as the price of peace. As the plaintiff did not accede to the proposition, the rights of the parties remained precisé! y as they were before the propositition was made. The judgment is affirmed.

Pee, Curiam. Judgment affirmed.  