
    Thomas Shewell v. Raguet.
    In an action of debt on an account the pleas of prescription, and discharge under the insolvent Jaws of another State, do not amount to a waiver of the plea of tho general issue. — 7 L. 85; 7 K, 467.
    Appeal from the court of the first district.
    This is an action on a merchant’s account, contracted in Philadelphia, in 1832, amounting to $1613, with interest added to October 3d, 1835. The defendant pleaded the general issue; and also prescription and a discharge under the insolvent laws of Ohio before the account became due.
    A witness declared, that he presented this account to the defendant, in Texas, in 1836, who acknowledged that it was correct, and he would settle it.
    , [460] On this evidence there was judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed.
    
      Ghiivn for plaintiff.
    
      Preston contra.
   Mabtin, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant is sued on an open account, for goods and merchandise sold and delivered to him in the State of Pennsylvaniahe being at the time a resident of the State of Ohio. He pleaded the general issue, prescription and a discharge under the insolvent laws of Ohio. There was a judgment against him, and he appealed.

The facts and circumstances of this case are precisely the same as those of the case of L. & T. F. Shewell against the present defendant, just decided ; and the judgment must be the same in this as was rendered in that case.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment of the district court be annulled, avoided and reversed, and a judgment of nonsuit entered against the plaintiff, with costs in both courts.  