As there was evidence tending to show that the agreement of December 30, 1889, was intended by the parties as an accord, which, when performed, was to be in satisfaction of the contract of May 20, 1889, and as it was conceded that under the said agreement of December 30, 1889, there was no performance, we are of opinion that the ruling of the circuit court, on the invitation of the defendants, plaintiffs in error here, on the effect of said agreement, was not erroneous; and as, on the other errors assigned and pressed in this court, we find for the defendant in error, the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed. .