PRICE v. TYSON.—3 BLAND. 393

*each other concerning the said claim or action; from the
time of the death of the said Nathan Tyson until after the 395
10th of October, 1821, when the distribution was made of the per-
sonal estate of the said Nathan Tyson as aforesaid; and these
defendants further say, that the said John Price continued to live
and reside in the said City of Baltimore, until after the said distri-
bution was made; and did not depart this life as these defendants
are informed and believe, until the 14th of October, 1821.

The defendant Mary answering for herself, admits, that she as
the widow of her intestate, was entitled to one-third of the sur-
plus of his personal estate, and alleges, that after paying off all
the just claims exhibited to the administrators; she had retained
her distributive share, and further that she knew, in the life-time
of her husband, early in the year 1815, that an agreement was
about to be made between the said Nathan Tyson and John Price,
relating to the freight of a quantity of flour of said Tyson's, which
was to be transported in a vessel of said Price from Baltimore to
some island of the West Indies: and then she adds, that being
present at a conversation between the said Tyson and Price on
that subject; Price observed, that he considered it to be only rea-
sonable and just, that the freight should be reduced to a peace
rate, if it should be known before the vessel which was to carry
the flour sailed from Baltimore, that peace was made between the
United States and Great Britain; and that he was willing such a
condition should be inserted in the contract for the freight of the
Hour to be transported; and the said Price and Tyson in that con-
versation, entirely agreed in the opinion expressed by them in re-
gard to the reduction of the rate of freight in the event of peace
being known in Baltimore to have been made before the sailing of
Price's vessel; and it was then, as she understood, agreed between
them, that it should form a part or condition of their agreement for
freight.

The defendant Mary further answering, admits, that she learned
from her intestate, that, in consequence of a dispute, the plain-
tiff's intestate had brought suit against her intestate for the whole
or some part of the freight of the flour; that she did know, that
the dispute had been referred to arbitration, but did not know,
that it was not settled; and then adds, that the impression made
upon her mind by the knowledge, that such reference had been
made, as well as from the fact, that she heard nothing on the sub-
ject afterwards, was that an end had been put to the suit as well
as to the dispute.

* The defendant Isaac admits, that his intestate was his
brother; and that he did know, in the life-time of his intes-
tate, that he had a dispute with the plaintiff's intestate in relation
to a claim for freight which he heard and believed had been re-