Legal Opinion

Hicks v. National Bank

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided May 30, 1895No. Appeal, No. 100PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Read the full summary

Appeal, No. 100, Jan. T., 1895, by defendant from order of C. P. No. 2 Phila. Co., June T., 1894, No. 782, making absolute a rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense. Assumpsit to recover the amount of a deposit. Joseph Moore, president of defendant bank, filed an affidavit of defense in which he averred: “The said Heniy Hicks, deceased, was a depositor in our bank and at the time of his death, which occurred on June 24, 1894, there was standing to his credit on the books of the bank a balance of $234.73. “ I am informed, believe, and expect to be able to prove that the…

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion by

Mr. Justice McCollum,

It is a well-settled rule, supported by reason and authority, that in an action by the administrator of a solvent estate the defendant may set off against the claim of the plaintiff a debt due by the decedent when the suit was brought. In such a case no valid reason appears for compelling the defendant to pay what he does not owe and look to his debtor’s estate for the repayment of it. By requiring him to do so the commissions of the administrator may be increased at the expense of the estate and the defendant may be driven to an action against it for money he…

2Cases cited2 opinions

Beckwith v. . the Union Bank of New-YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
Chipman & Holt v. Ninth N. BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1888

3Cited by10 opinions

Brothers v. Girard National BankSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
Rutenic v. HamakarOregon Supreme Court · 1902
Thacher's EstateSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1933
Steinmeyer v. Ewalt Street Bridge Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
Book v. O'NeilSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1896

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.