
    Edward v. Turner.
    1. Propositions to compromise. A proposition to settle, compromise or refer a matter in controversy, does not bind the party mating the same if it is not accepted by the other.
    
      Appeal from Lee District Court.
    
    Wednesday, October 26.
    This was a bill in equity to settle a partnership.
    The complainant alleges that the two parties had been in partnership in the transaction of law business generally, and also as real estate and insurance agents. The matter upon which the principal, if not the sole, difference arose, was in relation to the. saleries of two insurance companies which Turner received, and which Edwards claimed belonged to the firm, but which Turner insisted were his private matter, and did not belong to the firm. The respondent, in his answer, refers to two paper-writings, averred by him to be in the handwriting of petitioner, one of which was an agreement for the dissolution of the partnership, and the other an agreement to refer to the decision of arbitrators, certain matters of difference between them. Neither of these papers was signed by either of the parties. They are made exhibits A and B to the bill. The petitioner moved that these exhibits and those parts of the answer which refer to them, be stricken from the answer as being irrelevant, improper and redundant, they being mere offers to settle, to compromise or to refer, and to buy the plaintiffs peace, which were not acceeded to, and are not admissable in evidence. This motion was sustained by the court and the papers and the answer, so far as it refers to them, were stricken out. From this ruling the respondent appeals as from an intermediate order.
    
      J. S. Graig, for the appellant.
    
      George 0. Dixon and Sami. F. Miller, for the appellee.
   Woodwaed, J.

There was no error in this action of the court for the reason stated in the motion.

The papers are only propositions to lead to, or induce, a settlement or a reference. In such case either party might make concession not called for by the actual facts, for the purpose of attaining the end desired, and, not being accepted, they are not to be taken against him. The ruling of the Courtis affirmed.  