
    *Smith v. Penn.
    June Term, 1872,
    Wytheville.
    Absent, Staples, J.
    
    Scaling—Agreement between the Parties—Conclusive. —Within six months after the act for scaling debts was passed, S recovered a judgment by default against P. Afterwards, P being about to move the court to scale the debt, the parties, with the assistance of their counsel, agreed that the debts should be scaled as of the value at the date of the bond, which was one for three, and this is entered of record upon the judgment. Afterwards, P flies his bill to have the debt scaled as of the date the bond fell due. Held the agreement between the parties is conclusive, and the debt is not to be further scaled.
    This was a bill for an injunction to a judgment filed in the Circuit court of Patrick county, in December 1868, by Jackson Penn against Madison T. Smith. The judgment was b.y default in September 1866, and was upon a bond executed on the 5th of January 1863, and payable on the 5th of January 1864. The Circuit court enjoined the judgment, and rendered a decree for a balance which Penn, according to the views of the court, had overpaid upon it. The case is stated in the opinion of the court.
    Bybrook, for the appellant.
    Dillard, for the appellee.
    
      
      He was related to some of the parties.
    
   BOUBDIN, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In September 1866, Madison T. Smith, as trustee for +he children of Adeline M. Smith, obtained a judgment by default in the Circuit court of Patrick county, against Jackson Penn and G. M. Hylton for $4,210, with interest thereon from the 5th of January 1864, until paid, and costs, on a bond executed for the purchase of slaves on the 5th day of January 1863.

The injunction was awarded, the cause regularly matured and heard, and the debt again scaled to 8210, instead of $1,403.33Jjj ; and the defendant having already paid more than $210, the Circuit court rendered a decree in his favor for $26.50, the excess of payments, with interest and costs. Prom that decree Smith appealed to this court.

The only ground of equity alleged in the bill for disturbing the adjustment solemnly entered into between the parties, aided by counsel on both sides, is that there was a mistake of law in scaling the debt as of the date of the contract, instead of the maturity thereof. Whether this be a mistake of law or not, may perhaps be considered a question of some doubt; but as that question does not necessarily arise in this case, no opinion thereon will be now expressed. The differences between the parties involved other questions; and it is enough to say, that the parties themselves, with the aid of counsel, have carefully and deliberately adjusted these differences, and made a settlement deemed just and reasonable by themselves at the time, and deemed just and reasonable now by this court; and even had they fallen into a mistake of law, it was not such a mistake as equity should have relieved against. The questions involved in the adjustment were at the time, to say the least of them, doubtful questions ; and it is well settled that “if the question be a doubtful one, and the doubtfulness of that question is made the basis of an arrangement or agreement, the court will give no relief.” Adams’ Eq., top. p. 444, marg. 189.

We are of opinion, therefore, that the decree of the Circuit court is erroneous, and that the same should be reversed, the injunction dissolved, and the bill dismissed.

Decree reversed.  