
    Waite against Harper.
    Where the ed t0 Pay the plaintiffwould obtaining6 a*8 discharge un-vent act) ¿D(j t;'e dGfendanfe accordingly obtained his d‘scliai’ge 0Q the same day, and the plain-bron^h^ld!!8 action on the cover^the defendant pleaded his was held,that K”i3.' on .an illegal andvoid?t10'”
    IN|error on certiorari. The defendant in error brought his action against the plaintiff in error, in the court below. The declaration stated that the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in'the sum of 20 dollars, for costs accrued in a suit brought by Harper against Waite in the court of common pleas; on the settlement of which, the defendant promised to pay the costs; the defendant below pleaded i i • , the general issue; and the jury round a verdict for the plaintiff. On the trial, the defendant gave in evidence 1 . . ° ilis discharge .under the insolvent act, and that the pro•mise laid in.the plaintiff’s declaration.was made prior to the discharge, though on the same day; and that it was made to the plaintiff, in consideration that he would not oppose the defendant’s discharge under the act. The demand of the plaintiff was not inserted in the inventory of debts exhibited by the defendant.
    
      Skinner, for the plaintiffin error.
    
      Z. R. Shepherd, contra.
   Per Curiam.

Thejudgment below must be reversed, The consideration for the promise, was illegal. It was founded in fraud, and made for the purpose of stifling si due scrutiny into the claim of the defendant to a- discharge under the insolvent actv

Judgment reversed;  