
    Joshua Loring et al. versus Newell Brackett.
    One of two joint plaintiffs, who had formerly been partners, having agreed that the action should be discontinued, the other made affidavit that the cause of action was a debt due to the partnership, and that the agreement was made to defraud him by collusion between his co-plaintiff and the defendant, and thereupon the Court refused to order a nonsuit.
    Assumpsit. On a motion by Leland, that the Court would order a nonsuit, upon an agreement of the plaintiffs that the action should be discontinued —
    S. D. Parker, in behalf of Loring,
    objected that the plaintiffs were formerly partners ; that the action was brought to recover a debt due to the partnership ; that Price, the other plaintiff, had made the agreement by collusion with the defendant ; and that the question of fraud must be determined by the jury. In support of these facts he produced Loring’s affidavit. He cited Gow on Partn. 78; 1 Montag. on Partn. 108.
    
      Leland
    
    remarked that the affidavit stated only that the de fendant was indebted to the partnership ; that it did not appear that Loring himself was not likewise indebted to it ; and that when a partnership is dissolved, any debtor may settle with either of the partners and obtain a discharge.
    
      Parker, in reply,
    said that Loring could make affidavit that Price was indebted to the partnership; and he compared this case to those in which a release after an assignment has been set aside.
   Per Curiam.

We think we ought not to order a nonsuit; but the defendant will have an opportunity, when the cause shall be tried, of showing what effect should be given to the agreement in question. 
      
      
        Eastman v. Wright, 6 Pick. 323.
     