
    COURT OF. APPEALS, (E. S.) JUNE TERM, 1822.
    Gordon vs. Tumer
    aiñns.l-ralt^ehtf of mÍu-cA iVm,”*! imh ofa cebt cun. traded subse. qm*nt» the Pas.¡(“a1 his were c¡t¡¿fecuar^fdfsuch
    Appeal from Kent county court. This was an action of debt on a single bill. The facts of the case, as agreed tin by the parties, were as follow, viz. The defendant, 1 , . (now appellee,) executed the single bill-, upon which the suit Was brought, to the plaintiff, (the appellant*) on the 28th day of Januai-y 1808* and that the same remained unpaid. After the execution of said bill, the defendant was committed to the gaol of Kent county* at the Suit of George Dashiell, and others’, for want of special bail, and not being indebted to his creditors in the sum of J200 sterling, he applied for the benefit of the act of assembly for the relief of insolvent debtors* passed at March session 1774* eh. 28, and its supplements, and was regularly discharged under said acts on the 11th day of May 1808. The plaintiff and defendant* at the time of the execution of said discharge, were both citizens of this state, and the debt how in controversy was returned by the defendant in the schedule of his debts* which accompanied his said application-. The defendant, since his discharge* had not acquired, and was not possessed of any property, except what he had acquired by his own industry. On these facts the county court gave judgment for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed to this court, where the cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J. Buchanan, Martin, Dorsey, and Stephen, J. by
    
      Chambers, for the Appellant, and by
    
      Tilghman, for the Appellee.
   The judgment

of the County Court was reversed, and judgment given for the appellant for the debt and costs.  