
    LIND vs. HEATH.
    
      Twelfth Judicial District Court,
    
    
      August, 1857.
    Insolvency&emdash;Description in Schedule.
    If an instrument, drawn as a bill of exchange, and accepted, is described in the schedule as a promissory note, and the parties properly referred to, it will be sufficient, though the holder may be unknown to the insolvent.
    The plaintiff sues the defendant upon a certain acceptance of a bill of exchange, and the defendant pleads as a bar to the recovery, his discharge in insolvency, in the schedule of which this accepted bill is recited as a promissory note to the defendant, which he has endorsed as surely for the maker, who is really the drawer of the bill of exchange.
    Thus for the parties occupy the same relative position. The plainffif claims that it is not a sufficient description to warrant the discharge.
    Waller & Osborne, for plaintiff.
    Brosnan, for defendant.
   Norton, J.

held that in this case the description was sufficient, and that the plaintiff could understand that the debt therein described referred to the acceptance, though described as an endorsement.  