
    Robert Walsh, Jr. versus William P. Farrand and Another.
    Where the parties to a contract were all citizens of another State, it was'holden, that a discharge of the debtors, under an insolvent law of such State, was a good bar to an action upon such contract, (t)
    (t) See Coolidge vs. Poor, 15 Mass. Rep. 427.
    Assumpsit upon a promissory note for $ 1000, dated the 20th of August, 1812, made by the defendants, and payable to the plain tiff or his order.
    In a statement of facts, upon which the action was referred to the decision of the Court, the same facts were agreed as in the next preceding case, except that the plaintiff and defendants, at the date of said note, were, and ever since have been, citizens of Pennsylvania, and * resident in the city of Philadelphia. It was also agreed, that the other defendant than the said Farrand was, equally with him, entitled to the benefit of the Act referred to n the said case of Bradford fy al. vs. Farrand.
    
    
      If, upon the facts agreed, the plaintiff was entitled to recover, the defendants were to be defaulted; otherwise the plaintiff was to become nonsuit.
    
      Davis (Solicitor-General), for the plaintiff.
    
      Ritchie, for the defendants.
   Per Curiam.

The plaintiff and defendants all being citizens of Pennsylvania, and resident there ; and the contract sued being made within the same State after the promulgation of the Act on which the discharge is founded ; according to the principles adopted by us in the case of Blanchard vs. Russell, the certificate of discharge is a bar to the plaintiff’s demand.

Plaintiff nonsuit.  