ELFELT V. HABT. 267 �subsequent interview attempted to obta'n the defendant's con- sent to a compromise which, in substance, was that the plaintiff would pay $2,000 on the mortgage, if he could raise it or borrow it, and give a new note for $2,000, payable in three years, giving a satisfactory security for the same by mortgage; and the defendant, in consideration therefor, should waive ail accrued interest, and release the mortgage he then held from the property embraced in it, urging that on accouat of his financial condition he could make no better proposition, stating that "the property is ail I have that I can use for the purpose of paying my indebtedness." On a subsequent meet- ing the plaintifï reiterated his former statement, and told the defendant "that in times like these I did not think I was asking too much to have the whole interest thrown off." The plaintiff also told the defendant that his ability to carry eut the offer made to pay $2,000 depended upon his ability to raise or borrow the money from a friend. The plaintiff finally indueed the defendant to accept the proposition, and immediately went oui to raise or borrow the money. He had in his possession a draft for $2,000, and, proceeding to the office of Messrs. Young, Smythe, Field & Co., he exchanged his draft for their check on a Philadelphia bank, and, returning to the defend- ant, stated that he had borrowed the money ($2,000) from a friend, and the agreement above set forth was executed by . the defendant, and the $2,000 check paid over by plaintiff. After obtaining the agreement to release the mortgage, the plaintiff, in his evidence, says: "I told the brother of Mr. E. Hart that I had already sold the property, and in reply to his question, why I had not told Mr. E. Hart, I answered I knew human nature too well ; that, if I had done so, Mr. E. Hart would certainly not have made any reduction in interest." �The plaintiff, when he went to Philadelphia, obtained a statement of the amount of delinquent taxes, and, at the first interview, when the defendant said he was worried about the taxes, asked him "if, at the time he telegraphed about the taxes, he (plaintiff) had offered the property in payment of the mortgage, whether he would have accepted it," and re- ��� �
