SCHREIBBB ». SHARPLEBS. ITo �in consideration of the creditera consenting to a discharge. And it may be added that the same provision was re-enacted in the English bankruptcy act of 1861, (24 & O5 Vict. c. 124, § 166;) but I do not find it in the English act oif 1869, and hence infer that such a promise would now be reckoned valid and binding there, except so far as it might be affected by the statute of 6 Geo. IV. c, 16, which requires the bank- rupt's promise to pay a debt dischargeable in bankruptcy pro- ceedings to be in writing, and signed by him or by some one by him lawfuUy authorized, A similar law was enacted in New Jersey a few years since requiring every promise of the bankrupt to pay any debt or demand, from which he had been released by bankruptcy, to be put in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith. But it does not seem to apply to the present case, as it is limited in terms to promises mode after the discharge. Eev. St. N. J., "Frauds and Perjuries," § 8. The promise here was made pending the bankruptcy proceedings, and before the discharge Wi't. granted, �The case under consideration, therefore, must be decided, according to the principle of the common law, which declares that the moral obligation to pay the debt la a aufficient con- sideration to support a paroi promisoi May v. Sperry, 6 Cush. 240. �Under the evidence and the law, the bankrupt is not en- titled to his discharge, and the same is ref used. ���SoHKBiBEB & Sons, who sue as well for the United States as for themselves, r. Charles SjaARPUEaa & Sons.* • ' ' �{District Court, E. D. Penntylvania. Febniary 7, 1881.) �1. Action for Penalty— Principal not Liabls foii Aots of Agent. �Where suit is brouglit to recover a penalty imposed by statute, the �doctrines of principal and agent, which prevail in civil transactions, �are inapplicable, and the principal is not responaible f or acts Of Us �ngent done wit'.ioiit his'knowledge. �'■'.;-^;.;:(;.l ! v i"'.'.;:!'.; T. i'/i .!i;:.J, I^i';., of tlic Plilladclphla bar. ��� �
