BRIDaKS V. 8HELD0M. 23 �apon credit, to be retained out of the avails cf his contraets with the government received into thoir hands. Each sum' was offered in connection with the fumishing stone by the Refendants, or by others, at stipulated priees, for filling his «ontracts, and was accepted in that connection. Af terwards a new contraot was made between them, by which the defend- ants were to reoeive a larger sum for the stone furnished by them, and a commission on the stone furnished by others in ^he same connection, and by which an appropriation was made of the avails so received by the defendants from the government. This advance in price exceeded one of the sums, and the advance and commission probably riearly equalled and perhaps exceeded, each of the others, althoagh exactly how the others would compare is not easily ascertainable. However they might compare, the parties took several of the subjects of the former contraot and embraced them in t^ie latter upon new terms, without expressly providing what the effect upon the subjects of the former not embraced in the latter should be. The latter must stand because it is the later act of the parties. With the latter oontract standing, the former cannot be carried out as it was made in respect to those sums composing this item. So the new contract Bnperseded the old to that extent. The defendants could not, consistently with the new contraot, retain those sums out of the money received from the government, and they are not now entitled to have it allowed to them out of the balance of that or other money of the orator in their hands. The excep- tions to the disallowance of this item are overruled. �2. As to item of Morgan notes, $20,000, admitted |13,000. Morgan held four of the orator's notes, of $5,000 each. They were given upon good consideration, negotiable^ and., so far as appears, just. Before they were matured the defendants pur- chased them, and they were indorsed to the defendants. The defendants paid $13,000 for them. They jare brought into this accounting without objection, and the only question is whether the defendants ^hall be allowed thejr face or only «hat was paid for them. As they were valid and uegotiabla, ��� �
