Judgment of the Court
J.-I am of opinion this appeal should be dismissed. The alleged mistake of $100 was known to Worrall's attorney at the time the settlement was being negotiated. He communicated the knowledge to Peters's attorney with whom the negotiations were carried on. At any rate the fact that Peter's attorney had such knowledge at the time he agreed to the settlement was found by the learned Chief Justice who tried the cause and on evidence which I think fully justified the finding. With full knowledge therefore of the necessary facts on both sides, a settlement of outstanding accounts was proposed and accepted, and it is now contended that this settlement should be upset because the written memorandum in which the negotiations were conducted showed one of the accounts which Peters was to have had assigned to him to be $100 larger than it really was. It does not appear to me that this fact, known to the attorneys of the parties at the time and acted upon by both of them, should be allowed to operate to defeat the agreed settlement. In itself the settlement appears to be a fair one and if the $100 was deducted from the amount Peters agreed to pay he would be gaining an unjust advantage. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed with costs.