806 FEDBBAIi EEPOBTEB. �that M waa not mentioned at the tlrae the compromise was efifected, did not show that there was any fraudaient concealmeut of the exist- ence of such suit. �6. MlSBBFBESENTAIION— MakKIAGB BETTHEMENT— ALLEGATION OF VA' �LTDiTY. — Reld, jMrth&r, that the validity of the marriage settlement a? against the creditera of Prewitt, not provided for in it, was a question of law resting in opinion, and not a question of fact restlng in evi- dence and representation ; and, therefore, that when it was alleged to be valid, it was so alleged as a matter of belief only, and did not constitute a misrepresentation of fact. �6. Mabru-GE Settlement — Guakanty of Validity. — Held, furihm-, �that the mere transfer of the Prewitt notes did not constitute a guaranty of the marriage settlement by which they were secured. �7. Coiitbact — Failobb of Considbbation— Rbscission. — Heid,further, �that the litigation ia relation to the marriage settlement must be brought to a close, and the decree of nullity completed, before tho settlement of May, 1867, could be rescinded npon the ground of fail- ure of consideration.— [Ed. �In Equity. Suit to set aside a settlement upon the ground of fraud, mistake, and want of consideration. �Beadley, C. J. Eeuben Chapman, the complainant in this case, formerly governor of Alabama, and a lawyer by profes- sion for a long time prior to the late civil war, and to some extent during the war, had dealings, as a planter in Alabama, with the firm of Bradley, Wilson & Co., commission merchants and bankers, of New Orleans, who had a branch bouse at Huntsville, Alabama. Before the war commenced the firm had become largely indebted to Chapman, and the debt was somewhat increased afterwards. Their dealings being very extensive, and many of their assets proving worthless, thoy became financially very much embarrassed. In May, 1867, whilst in this condition, their account with Chapman showed a balance due to him of $23,650.29, which they proposed to compromise and settle by transferring to him a claim which they held against one Eichard Prewitt, consisting of two notes drawn in 1861, and then past due, amounting, with interest, to $20,136.23, and an open account amounting to $1,231.71, and a draft against one Nirnmo for $150.76. The ciaim against Prewitt was secured by a provision in a marriage settlement made on the twenty-seventh day of April, 1866, betweeu Prewitt and his wife before marriage, by which cer- ����
