
    CANFIELD’S APPEAL.
    A debt discharged by a decree in bankruptcy can on.y be revived by an express promise to pay the debt.
    Appeal from the Orphans’ Court of Allegheny County. No. 254, November Term, 1874.
    Edward Heazelton, being largely indebted to J. B. Canfield, took the benefit of the. bankrupt act, and was discharged on March 9th, 1868. After his discharge, he again commenced business, and Canfield bought a large amount of goods from him, for which Heazelton never demanded payment, but directed his clerk to balance the account without receiving any money, for the purpose of paying the old claim. He also instructed his clerk to pay Canfield in cash for certain goods which he bought, and not to set off this account. Heazelton died insolvent, and Canfield presented his claim before an auditor appointed to distribute Heazelton’s estate, claiming that his claim was revived by these circumstances. The auditor held that as there was no direct evidence of a promise to pay this debt after the discharge in bankruptcy, it was not revived. The Orphans’ Court confirmed the report, and Canfield then appealed to the Supreme Court, complaining of the rejection of his claim.
    S. Schoyer, Jr., Esq., for appellant,
    cited Wolfensberger vs. Young, 47 Pa., 516; Johns vs. Lantz, 63 Pa., 326; Huff vs. Richardson, 19 Pa., 390; McClelland vs. West, 70 Pa., 186; Barclay’s Appeal, 64 Pa., 73; Yaw vs. Kerr, 47 Pa., 333; Criswell vs. Criswell, 56 Pa., 130.
    T. McConnell & Son, contra,
    
    were not heard by the Court, but cited Field’s Case, 2 R., 351; Earnest vs. Parke, 4 R., 452.
   The Supreme Court affirmed the decree of the Orphans’ Court on November 9th, 1874, in the following opinion:

Per Curiam.

We do not discover sufficient evidence of a promise to take this case out of the general rule, that a debt dscharged by a decree in bankruptcy can only be revived by the express agreement of the party, or such evidence as clearly establishes that such a promise has been made.

Decree affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.  