
    Pratt vs. Babcock & Dixon.
    1843. May 3.
    Where a defendant in a creditor’s suit has been discharged under the bankrupt act, subsequent to the commencement of the suit, the complainant will he permitted to dismiss his bill as to such defendant without costs.
    This was an application by the complainant for leave to dismiss his bill as to Babcock, one of the defendants, who had been discharged under the bankrupt act subsequent to the commencement of this suit.
    
      O. Mead, for the complainant,
    
      H. Sheldon, for the defendant.
   The Chancellor

said that where a defendant was a proper party, as one of the judgment debtors, at the time of the filing of the bill, and had subsequently been discharged, it was a matter of course to permit the complainant to dismiss his bill as to sucb pai'ty, if the application was made within a reasonable time after the complainant had notice of the discharge under the bankrupt act; unless the defendant would stipulate to waive the benefit of his discharge.

Order accordingly.  