It would require the very strongest authority to induce the Court to hold, that a discharge, by act of law, of one of two joint and several debtors, worked also the discharge of the other — more especially when, as in this case, the very purpose of the latter in becoming bound, was to guarantee the debt against the insolvency or bankruptcy of the principal. But there is no occasion for resorting to that principle, since the bankrupt act of 1841, under which the discharge here was had, expressly provides, that the discharge of a principal shall not impair the liability of his surety.
Pee Cueiam, . Judgment affirmed.