
    Willson against Gomparts and others.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1814.
    t^he™a°"nee°a obtains Ms dis-the “insolvent debt^tMs'feT discharge from Msyomt as well as separate debts‘
    THIS was an action of assumpsit on a promissory Dote, made by Gomparts, Nathan, and Jacobs, partners in trade, &c. Gomparts -pleaded, -separately, his discharge under the “ act for the benefit of insolvent debtors and their creditors,” passed the 3d April, 1811. The plea, after stating the proceedings , , . under the act-, to entitle the defendant to his discharge, set it forth verbatim, dated 6th August, 1811, by which the defendant, ■ Gomparts, was discharged ic from all debts due from him at the time of his said assignment, or contracted for before that time, though payable afterwards,” &c.
    Nathan, also, in like manner, pleaded his discharge under the same act.
    
      Jacobs, the other defendant, pleaded non assumpsit and payment, with notice of set-off.
    The plaintiff replied to the plea of Gomparts that the plaintiff ought not to be barred, &c. because he the said Gomparts, together with the said Nathan and Jacobs, did assume, Sec,
    
    ■The same replication was also made to the plea of Nathan.
    
    To each of these replications there was a general demurrer and joinder.
    S. Jones,
    
    jun. in support of the demurrer, contended, that the defendant was discharged from his joint, as well as separate, debts. He cited 3 R. Wms. 25. Hosey’s Case, note (A).
    
      Colden, contra,
    said, that our insolvent act was, in terms, the same as the English bankrupt law. In White v. Combes and‘ others, in which the pleadings are stated in 1 Lil. Ent. 106. (S. C. 1 Rich. K. B. Prac. 219—227.) one of three defendants pleaded his separate discharge under the bankrupt law, and the plaintiff) admitting his bankruptcy, replied the joint contract, and there was judgment for the plaintiff) which, in a note, is said to have been affirmed, on a writ of error, in the exchequer chamber.
    
      Again, a plea that the promise was made jointly with others, an(] no(; by the defendant separately, is 'a plea in abatement, not in bar. (Robinson and Hartshorn v. Fisher, 3 Caines' Rep. 99.)
    
      Wells, in reply,
    observed, that in the case cited from Li!. Ent. it appeared that a day was given to the defendant to rejoin, and there was judgment by default against him for want of a rejoinder, and a venire tain quam awarded. That case could not apply here, where the defendant demurs to the replication.
    The discharge of the insolvent defendant is from all his debts. Now the debts he owes jointly with others are equally his-debts, as those he owes separately.
   Per Curiam.

This is a clear case. The insolvent is discharged from his joint as well as separate debts, for, as each partner is severally as well as jointly responsible for the partnership debts,they are equally his debts as those contracted by him individually. The defendants are entitled to judgment oh demurrer.

Judgment for the defendants.  