Duncan v. Bloomstock
Supreme Court of South Carolina
AT this term, the plaintiff, Bloomstock, obtained a verdict against the defendant, John Duncan, foi’ the sum ®f two hundred dollars. In. July term, 1821, of the City Court of Charleston, the present defendant, as plaintiff, had obtained a judgment against the present plaintiff for two hundred and ninety one dollars. This was a motion to compel the plaintiff here to discount one against the other.
Read the full summary
AT this term, the plaintiff, Bloomstock, obtained a verdict against the defendant, John Duncan, foi’ the sum ®f two hundred dollars. In. July term, 1821, of the City Court of Charleston, the present defendant, as plaintiff, had obtained a judgment against the present plaintiff for two hundred and ninety one dollars. This was a motion to compel the plaintiff here to discount one against the other. The plaintiff resisted the motion on the ground that he had already assigned the verdict over to third persons. The court overruled the motion. This was an application to this court to reverse that…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Nott
That mutual judgments may be set off, was decided at the last sitting of this court, in Columbia, in the case of Williams & Evans, ante, 203. In that case, it was said to be a part of the equitable jurisdiction of this court, and ought, therefore, to be so exercised as to do equity between the parties. The rule there laid down, was that the party wishing to avail himself of such a motion, must make it at the first court. And that if he delayed it until a succeeding court, and in the mean time the interest of third persons intervened by the assignment of the judgment pr otherwise, it ought not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown Manufacturing Co. v. WatsonCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1887