At the new trial of the action, which took place on November 10 and 11, counsel for Mr. Hoyt urged that the Bank was estoppel to claim on the note in question because its attorneys here had a cepted the delayed payment which had become dae in January, 1925. Referring to that point the Court in its opinion said.:
Tt is further claimed by the de-j fendant that when the plaintiff, through its attorneys Messrs. Chal-aire and Franklin, on June 29, 1925, at Shanghai, China, accepted $750 in payment of the January 1, 1925, instalment, together with interest thereon, that such acceptance shoul] be held to operate as an estoppel. The facts, with reference to that matter, are. there: On June 19, 1925, Messis. Chalaire ani Franklin wrote to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs, demanding payment on defendant's note for 2137.78 Gold, with interest thereat the rate of 7 per cent. from December 27, 192%, and also demanded payment of the $750,00 note which became duc on the January 1, 1925. Thereafter, on June 22, 1525, "Messrs. Schuhl and Schoenfeld, defendant's counsel in Shanghai, wrote a letter to Chalaire and Franklin, stating among other things, that the defendant was wiling to carry out the terms of the! and Schoenfeld ' were prepared t.
erned interest, and also $750 duc July 1, on the distinct understand ing that delay in making tke pay-_ ment due on January 1, which delay! was largely caused by the action of your client in inviting negotia for a settlement, shall in no wise jeopardize our right to have the note for $2127.78 returned to us on January 1, 1927, without any ad-_ ditional payments being made there-On the same day, to-wit, June 29, 1925, Messrs, Chalaire and! Franklin replied as follows:
"Your letter of evan date is before us. "As the writer hae already explsin-Mr. Hoyt, the situation is) one ver which we have no control. We ave Submisted the offer of settlement made by Mr. Hoyt to. the Bank in Giencoy which "has. indi its Tack of interest therein and instructed 3 to collect the full amount now sao, which i im addition to the $700 whi, Ueeaime due om January 1, the sum of US. "$2127.78, for which we have re-conily" made demand" (Defendant's
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.