delivered the opinion

of the Court as follows:

Whatever equity the Complainant may once have had against the payee or holder of the note for 1438 15 which was assigned to George Grundy, in consequence of the non-performance of the agreement of the 15th of May, 1795, this Courtis of opinion that all such equity was done away by the contract of the 6th September, 1798. This last contract was made for the express purpose of making the Complainants a compensation for the loss they had sustained, by the non-performance of the other, and was evidently received as an equivalent ór substitute therefor. By this latter contract then they were placed, as it respected the holders of all their notes, precisely in the same situation as if there bad been no want or failure of consideration of the agreement made in 1795. Whether the agreement of 1798 has been complied with it is not material to inquire, because, previous thereto, this note was held by Grundy, who cannot be affected by any claim which the Complainant may have against the other Defendants in con - sequence of any subsequent transactions between the parties.

The Court is of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court be affirmed with costs.