¶1Set-off.
¶2The assignee of a bond, given by an insolvent, who obtained his discharge, after it became due, cannot use it as a set-off against the price of goods purchased from the obligor.1
¶3The plaintiff had become bound to one Splecit in the payment of a certain sum of money ; and after the bond was due, he obtained a discharge under the insolvent laws. Subsequently to his discharge, the defendant bought sundry goods of him, and when the price was demanded, tendered Splecit’s bond in payment, an assignment of which he had purchased for that purpose. The plaintiff, refusing to accept it, brought this action, and on the trial, the defendant offered to give the bond in evidence, by way of set-off ; in consequence of which, the balance wonld have been turned in his favor.
¶4Sergeant, for the plaintiff,
¶5opposed the admission of the bond in evidence, and cited Bull. N. P. 179.
¶6Levy, contended,
¶7that the evidence ought to be allowed, and referred to the same book, page 170.
¶10The hardship that must attend the admission of the bond, would, in reason, be alone sufficient to determine us to reject it. An insolvent debtor could never get forward in the world, if his old bonds, and other negotiable papers, were thus capable of being put in force against him. A debt of 501. might be bought for 50s. and the debtor, after his discharge, be liable, by such negotiations, to be defeated in every action, and baffled in every contract.
¶11*237But tlie law is clear, that the assignment being after the insolvency, the defendant can be in no better condition than the assignor, who could only come in for a dividend.
¶12The evidence was overruled, and Levy tendered a bill of exceptions.