BBIDGES V. CHELDOS. 27 �$20,000." The parties afterwards fixed an increased pnce to be allowed to the defendants for stone, and inserted them in a full agreement. The master bas considered that.by the terms of thewritings of acceptance,"upon such increased priees the defendants were to realize $20,000 as profits, in addition to what they would get for the stones fumished at said original priees; and, if such increased priees should give said $20,000 as such profit, that would answer their entire right as to profits. " And he bas found that, when the parties fixed the increased price for the stone, they provided an increase large enollgh to cover this $20,000, and bas disallowed the item, the stone being reckoned at the increased price. If these conclusions are correct, or if the fact is that the parties provided for the f 20,000 by the increased price, the item was properly disal- lowed, whether the construction put upon the writings is the true one or not. But this construction does not seem to be the true one. The acceptance is, expressly, that the compen- sation of the defendants was to be fixed by a definite price in addition to the former price, to be in lieu of the third interest, but not of the $20,000 which they were to have. They were not to have any third interest, but were to have the increased priees as compensation for the increase of their undertakings, and the $20,000 as profit. This is the con- struction put upon these writings in the orator's bill of com- plaint. Upon the construction of the master, bis finding of fact as to providing for this profit in the increased price is manif estly correct. If it was to be provided for in the in- creased price, it would follow directly that when they increased the priee they provided for it. In the view here taken the question of fact would be different. The starting point is different, and there would be more space to cover to reach the same resuit. Proof sufficient to establisb that the par- ties agreed to distribute the $20,000 to the priees of the stone, or to substitute an increased price of stone for that gross sum, would be necessary, in addition to proof of the fact that increased priees were fixed. The master bas not found such agreement. The fact. that they made such dis- ��� �
