Leitz v. Hohman
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 15, discharging rule to set off judgment against judgment in case of William Leitz v. John W. Hohman. Rule to set off judgment against judgment.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 91, Oct. T., 1902, by defendant, from order of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 15, discharging rule to set off judgment against judgment in case of William Leitz v. John W. Hohman. Rule to set off judgment against judgment. The issue was whether a judgment entered on a contract in the court of common pleas of Lancaster county to January term 1893, No. 659, upon which there is due a balance of $3,329.73, with interest from August 15,1896, and held by John W. Hohman against William Leitz, should be set off pro tanto against a judgment on a verdict for slander, entered in the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
William W. Pobteb, J.,.Leitz obtained a verdict and judgment against Hohmann for damages for slander. Hohmann held a judgment against Leitz founded on contract, for a much larger sum. Hohmann applied to the court for leave to set off, against the judgment of Leitz, so much of the judgment against Leitz, as should result in the satisfaction of the former. This application the court below refused.
Judgments are set off against each other not by force of statute but by the inherent powers of the courts immemorially exercised, being almost the whole equitable jurisdiction originally…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Temple & Beaupre v. ScottSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1859
- Aber's PetitionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Skinner v. ChaseSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by1 opinion
- Palmer for Use v. HeathSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934