SUPREME COURT OF THE CANAL ZONE.

eight payments, and $90.00, the last, commencing said payments on February 1, 1905.
The plaintiff also called the defendant as a witness in his behalf, and he testified that he signed the note in question; that he (lid not owe the same; that, in the month of April after its execution, he, the defendant, and the plaintiff, at their homes in Easton, Pennsylvania, by mutual consent, agreed to a cancellation and payment of the note in question by the execution, on the part of the defendant, of three separate notes, namely, two for $200.00 each and one for $297.00; that these notes were delivered to, and accepted by, the plaintiff in full payment and cancellation of the note sued on in this action; that, upon said notes as delivered to the plaintiff and accepted by him, the defendant had paid several amounts to the plaintiff, as per agreement, and exhibited two receipts for $25.00 each, signed by the plaintiff, which had been credited upon the larger note; that this agreement, the execution of the notes and acceptance of same, by the plaintiff, occurred in Easton, Pennsylvania; that the notes were in the possession of the plaintiff in the United States and that he had no power to produce the same, and that be had notified the attorney for the plaintiff of this agreement a year ago. The attorney for the plaintiff, at the trial, used the following language: "I admit the honesty and veracity of these receipts of Mr. Boilleau, and although I am not able to compare the signature on these notes with the other signatures, I am willing to admit these payments and change my complaint accordingly." Both of the subscribing witnesses to the note were present in the court below and it was not necessary for the plaintiff to have called the defendant, or used his evidence; but, having done so, he must be bound by the evidence he adduced. Does the evidence of the plaintiff show a payment and discharge of the obligation sued on? It seems clear that the parties to this obligation had a perfect right to enter into any agreement with reference to the same, that might seem to them to be just and proper, without consulting attorneys in the matter.
It is further insisted that the agreement made in Pennsylvania is not a valid contract, or, if valid, cannot be availed

22

July Termy,