¶1The agreement of the infant having had the. effect of preventing the other party from taking the appeal, would operate as a fraud upon him, if he were not permitted to avoid the effect of it in this form.
¶2The reason stated for not appealing is sufficient.
¶3Judgment reversed.
¶4 As to what is sufficient cause for certiorari, see Garrett v. Perryman, 2 Tenn. 108; Trigg v. Boyce, 4 Hayw. 100; Perkins v. Hadley, 4 Hayw. 143; Hale v. Landrum, 2 Humph. 32; Smith v. White, 5 Humph. 46; Napier v. Person, 7 Yerg. 300; Belcher v. Belcher, 10 Yerg. 121, 126; Day v. Johnson, 4 Cold, 231; McCormack v. Murfree, 2 Sneed, 46; Allen v. Prim, 2 Swan, 337; Evans v. Evans, 4 Cold. 600; Crouch v. Martin, 4 Sneed, 569; McMurry v. Milan, 2 Swan, 176; Chappell v. Jones, 8 Humph. 107.
¶5Cause for certiorari insufficient, when, see Henderson v. Luckey, 2 Tenn. 110; Stuart v. Hall, 2 Tenn. 179; Crafts v. Stockton, 8 Yerg. 164; O’Sullivan v. Larry, 2 Head, 64; Moss v. Collins, 3 Humph. 148; Porter v. Wheaton, 5 Yerg. 108; Sharp v. Clouston, 4 Yerg. 193; Newman v. Rogers, 9 Humph. 120; Adair v. Davis, 3 Humph. 137;