found in favour of the respondents.
It is conceded that the evidence is contradictory.
Therefore the D'AviGNoN appeal should be dismissed with costs.
J . Gironard J. Solicitors for the appellant: Smith 4- Macrae. Solicitors for the respondents: Wade &.Aikman. PITHER & LEISER (PLAINTIFFS)......APPELLANTS; AND
*Oct. 27, 28. JOHN A. MANLEY (DEFENDANT)........RESPONDENT. *Nov. 17. ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF.RRITISH COLUMBIA.
Debtor and creditor - Payment - Accord 7andsatisfaction - Mistake- Principalland agent.
On being pressed for payment of the amount of a promissory note, the defendant offered to convey to the plaintiffs a lot of land, then shown to the plaintiffs' agent, in satisfaction of the debt. The agent, after inspecting the land, made a report to the plaintiffs but gave an erroneous description of the property to be conveyed.
On being instructed by the plaintiffs to obtain the conveyance, the plaintiffs' solicitor observed the mistake in the description and took the conveyance of~the lot which had actually been pointed out and inspected at the time the offer was made.
More than a year afterwards, the plaintiffs sued the defendant on the note and he pleaded accord and satisfaction by conveyance of the land.
In their reply the plaintiffs alleged that the property conveyed was not that -which had been accepted by them and, at the trial, the plaintiff recovered judgment. The full court reversed the trial court judgment and dismissed the action.
Held, affirming the judgment appealed from (9 B. C. Rep. 257) that the plaintiffs were bound to accept the lot which had been offered to and inspected by their agent in satisfaction of the debt and could not recover on the promissory note.
:-Taschereau. Sedgewick, Girouard, Davies and Mills JJ.