Case ID: cow_5/html/0265-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Couch against Ash.
    Under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases, (sess. 42, eh. 101,) a new promise to pay the debt, made after the discharge, will not restore the right to imprison the defendant.
    Assumpsit. The defendant pleaded his discharge under the act to abolish imprisonment for debt in certain cases, (sess. 42, ch. 101.) Replication, that after the discharge, the defendant undertook and promised the plaintiff to pay the sum mentioned in the declaration. Rejoinder and issue upon that fact.
    The cause was tried upon this issue at the last Ulster circuit, before Betts, C. Judge ; and a verdict found for the plaintiff. And now,
    
      J. Sudam, for the defendant,
    moved, that notwithstanding the verdict, judgment should be against the defendant de bonis only; and cited Wilson et al. v. Kemp, (3 M. & S. 595.)
    
      
      C. H. Ruggles, contra, cited 3 Chit. PL 474-5, and the statute 54 Geo. 3, ch. 28.
   Curia.

Let the judgment be for the plaintiff, with a special entry on the record, exempting his person from impr. sonment.

Rule accordingly.