(nem. con.) gave judgment for the plaintiff, because it appeared to be a naked case of set-off of debts due in different rights. And although a joint debt may be proved under a separate commission, yet it is only to enable the joint creditor to come in for his share of the surplus, after payment of the separate creditors.

This judgment was reversed by the Supreme Court, (5 Cranch, 34,) because a defendant may set off a joint debt by virtue of the Bankrupt Law.