
    Sessions against Phinney.
    NEW-YORK,
    May, 1814.
    A discharge of "an insolvent ¿ranted under the act of the 3d April, 1811, (which was repealed in <8i 2,. is not admissible in evidence under the general issue, in an action commenced against the insolvent in 1813 ? the rule of pleading the discharge pre scribed by the act of 1801, (which was revived by the repeal of the repealing act of 1811,' applies only to discharges under that act; and the act of 1811 required the defendant to give notice of his discharge With the plea.
    IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Phinney sued Sessions, before the justice, on a note, or due bill. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit; and, at the trial, offered in evidence his discharge under the act for the benefit of insolvent debtors andftheir creditors, passed April, 3, 1811. (Sess. 24. c. 123.) The justice rejected the discharge, because the defendant had given no notice of it, as required by the fourth section of that act, which declares that if the insolvent who has obtained his discharge be sued, &c. “ he may plead the general issue, and give the special matter in evidence, upon and under a notice given with said plea, in which notice he shall be required to state that he has been discharged,” &c. The defendant offered to prove that when he pleaded the general issue, he mentioned his discharge, but the justice overruled the evidence.
    It appeared that the suit was commenced in March, 1813, and that the act of the 3d April, 1811, was repealed the 14th February, 1812.
   Per Curiam.

The insolvent act of 1811, which repealed the former act of 1801, required the insolvent to give notice of his discharge with the plea of the general issue. The act of the 3d April, 1801, (sess. 24. c. 131. s. 11.) allows the insolvent to plead the general issue, and give the special matter in evidence. By the repeal of the act of April, 1811, the former act of 1801 was revived. The question is, whether the mode of pleading required under the act of 1811, is to be pursued since its repeal. The rule of pleading prescribed by the act of 1801 applied only to discharges under that act. The discharge of the defendant was not admissible in evidence under the general issue, either at common law, or by the act of 1811. Any evidence that the defendant mentioned his discharge at the time of pleading the general issue, was properly overruled. The judgment below must, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.  