I concur with Justice Ailshie as to the first note. As to the second, I dissent, and the payment of the note should be required because it was admittedly not in the possession or ownership of W. Ehlert at the time of the claimed settlement in August or September, 1931; and the evidence is sufficient to show that it was not then considered, and that the repossession of the premises by Ehlert was after the second note had become due and the termination of the lease period of 1931.