¶1Opinion by
¶2C. Fryear composed the company of the firm of R. Reeves & Co. The case was dismissed as to R. Reeves. The firm was indebted to various parties when Fryear sold out his interest to Frank Reeves a brother of R. Reeves ; the firm thereafter being Reeves & Bro.
¶3There was evidence at the trial tending .to show that when Fryear sold out, the new firm of Reeves & Bro. assumed the debt of the old firm of Reeves & Co., which assumption was accepted and agreed to by their cred*212itors, thereby discharging Fryear. There was also evidence tending to” show the creditors were not a party to this agreement.
¶4A trial resulted in favor of defendant, and plaintiffs prosecute this writ.
¶5Various exceptions were taken to the action of the court in the progress of the trial. A case of Baum & Co. against Fryear, this defendant, involving the same questions presented here, has just been decided by the Supreme Court. It seems that Baum & Co. claimed to be creditors of the old firm, and denied any release or discharge of defendant. A trial resulted in a judgment in favor of defendant, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. The points involved in this case are substantially the same. Judgment affirmed.