#### J. E. Houston, Appellee, v. C. G. Frank, Appellant.

Gen. No. 23,558.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Abstract of the Decision.

Brokers—what constitutes settlement between broker ana client. In an action by the purchaser of stock against a broker to recover *196the value of stock which plaintiff claimed defendant had agreed to dispose of after the first or second dividends became due, where it appeared that plaintiff had claimed that defendant had originally agreed when defendant had sold him stock, in place of bonds, which he preferred, that if plaintiff was dissatisfied with the stock defendant would give him bonds in lieu thereof or refund his money, and a written agreement was entered into whereby plaintiff exchanged nearly half of the stock for bonds, and which agreement stated that plaintiff was satisfied with the remaining stock and would hold it until all the preferred stock of the' corporation had been disposed of, and that defendant was not to be responsible for disposition of the stock, and plaintiff testified that he read and understood the agreement, and he made no explanation why he was only to keep the remaining stock for a lesser period of time, held that there was a settlement between the parties. ■

*195Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Fry, Judge, presiding.

Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.

Reversed.

Opinion filed April 3, 1918.

Statement of the Case.

Action by J. E. Houston, plaintiff, against C. Gr. Frank, defendant, to recover the value of stock which plaintiff owned and held and claimed that defendant, a broker, who had sold the stock to him, had agreed to dispose of after the first or second dividend became due. From a judgment for plaintiff for $5,000, defendant appeals.

Wilson & Mat, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Mb. Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the court.