Old Town Nat. Bk. of Balto. v. Parker

⁶² Burke, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appeal in this case is from a judgment of the Baltimore City Court. The record shows that the appellant sued George E. Parker, Sr., and George E. Parker, Jr., upon two overdue promissory notes executed by them aggregating the sum of $1)750.00. A judgment by default was entered against George E. Parker, Sr., and this judgment was extended for $1,778.20 on March 27th, 1912.

George E. Parker, Jr., was adjudicated a bankrupt by the United States District Court for Maryland, on the 17th of November, 1911, and was discharged as such bankrupt by that Court on May 11th, 1912. He pleaded his discharge in bankruptcy as a bar to the suit. The plaintiff replied that since the adjudication in bankruptcy the defendant px'omised to pay the plaintiff’s claim, the cause of action in this case. A x*ejoinder was filed to this replication wherein the defendant denied that since his adjudication as a bankrupt on the 17th of November, 1912, he had promised to pay the claim.

The case by agreement was tried before the Court, without the intervention of the jury, and resulted in a verdict and judgment for the defendant, — the Court ruling as a matter of law upon the request of the defendant, that the plaintiff had offered no evidence legally sufficient to entitle it to recover. The px*omise x*elied on to avoid the effect of the adjudication and discharge is claimed to have been made in December, 1911. It was admitted at the txial that the notes were signed by the defendant prior to his adjudicatioxx ixx bankruptcy; that they were filed in the bankruptcy proceedings, and that no dividend was paid on them. Two questions only are presented by the record, first, is a promise made after the adjudication but prior to the discharge in bankruptcy effectual to renew'the debt sued on?

Secondly, is the evidence produced by the plaintiff sufficient to constitute a new px’omise in cases of this character ? ⁶³ First. — The overwhelming .weight of authority supports the proposition that the promise of a bankrupt to pay the debt sued on made between the date of the adjudication and the discharge will revive the debt. Brix v. Braham, 1 Bing. 281; Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall, 13 M. & W. 766; Lerow v. Wilmarth, 7 Allen, 463 ; Wiggin v. Hodgdon, 63 N. H. 39; Moore v. Trounstine, 126 Ga. 116 . In Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall, supra, Baron Parke said: “There is no distinction in this respect between the case of a promise made before the certificate of,