BUTHBELAND ». STEAW. 283 �eubject of this suit, but were wholly beyond the scope of it. Upon an examination of this case and others therein referred to, and especially askew v. Wellington, 9 Hare, 65, the court was at first strongly inclined to the opinion that the present case must be controlled by these decisions, and that the respond- ents were not entitled to have the decree as prayed for. Upon further reflection, however, the conclusion is that the instru- ments executed by this eomplainant on the twenty-sixth of December last are not to be deemed as the equivalents of a compromise, but are of a much more comprehensive and sig- nificant character, and by their legal operation and effect do confer upon Straw the entire control and direction of this cause. �By paper No. 2 the eomplainant conveyed to Straw his entire interest in lot 16, and by No. 3 he assigned abso- lutely, without any reservation, the present suit and cause of action, and constituted Straw his attorney, irrevocable, to dispose of said cause by such entry or decree therein as he should choose to make, saving the eomplainant from ail lia- bility for costs. A valuable consideration, to the extent of $2,000, was then paid to eomplainant, by Straw, for this assign- ment, and also a bond given for a further payment of $4,400, when realized from sales of the property. This sum of money the eomplainant retains, and does not propose to pay back any part of it, and by an action at law upon the bond is still persisting in enforcing the validity of the agreements of December 26th; and, what is of more significance, the eom- plainant, up to the present time, bas not, by his own state- ments under oath, advised the court that these agreements were invalid, or that in any respect any fraud was practiced upon him at the time they were agreed to by him. �By these instruments, thus recognized by the silence of the eomplainant as just and reasonable, he- parted with ail right, title and interest in this suit and the controversy therein involved, and conveyed the same to Straw, authorizing him to dispose of the same as he should elect. The eomplainant from that time had no further interest in this suit or any right to control the same, or to be heard or represented in ����
