
    Cyrus Lothrop vs. John Tilden & others.
    A discharge of an insolvent debtor from “ all debts founded on any contract made by him,” obtained under proceedings in insolvency instituted by him in his individual capacity and also as member of a late firm, discharges him from his liability for the debts of such firm.
    Where a discharge in insolvency was pleaded to a subsequent action against the debtor, and was sought to be impeached on the ground that the debtor did not file schedules of Ms debts and assets before the commissioner; a statement in the record of the proceedings before the commissioner, that the debtor did produce such schedules, was held to be sufficient evidence of that fact, in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
    This was an action of assumpsit against John Tilden, Martin Hayward, and Howard Tilden, upon several promissory notes, signed previous to 1843 by the firm of John Tilden & company, of which the defendants were members. John Tilden pleaded a certificate of discharge obtained under proceedings in insolvency on a petition instituted by him in January, 1844. This certificate purported to discharge John Tilden from all debts, proved or provable against his estate, and “ founded on any contract made by him,” &c.
    At the trial, which was before Bigelow, J., in the court of common pleas, the plaintiff contended that the discharge was no bar to this action, by reason of insufficiency on its face, because it did not purport to discharge John Tilden from the debts of the firm of John Tilden & company. But, as it appeared by a copy of the petition, on which the warrant in insolvency issued, that the petitioner represented himself to be personally indebted, and also to be indebted as a member of the late firm of John Tilden & company; and as the record and files of the debts proved showed that all the debts proved in the case were partnership debts of John Tilden & company; the judge ruled that the certificate was sufficient to discharge the debt in suit.
    The plaintiff, in a specification filed in avoidance of the discharge, alleged that John Tilden never produced to the master, nor delivered to his assignee, a schedule of his debts and property. The defendant introduced no evidence that he filed his schedules of debts and assets, except a recital in the record of the proceedings in insolvency that “ the said John Tilden produced a schedule of his creditors, and of the debts due to them respectively; also a schedule of his real and personal estate.” The plaintiff introduced no evidence to control this statement in the record; and the judge ruled, that this statement in the record was sufficient evidence that the defendant duly filed his schedules of debts and assets.
    A verdict being returned for the defendant, John Tilden, the plaintiff alleged exceptions to the rulings of the judge.
    
      T. G. Coffin, for the plaintiff.
    
      E. Ames, for John Tilden.
   By the Court.

The discharge of the defendant is a good bar against debts due from the firm, of which he had been a member. Such debts were, strictly speaking, “his debts.” He was liable in solido for them, and his individual property, after paying his separate debts, was applicable in insolvency to their payment. They were also provable against his estate, and were within the express terms of St. 1838, c. 163, §§ 7, 21. See Ex parte Yale, 3 P. Wms. 24, note.

The plaintiff having offered no evidence to impeach the discharge, and it being shown by the record of proceedings in insolvency, that the defendant had produced schedules of his debts and assets, there is very clearly no ground, on which the plaintiff can maintain his action.

Exceptions overruled.  