Nichols v. Alsop
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money paid, for money lent, and for goods sold and delivered ; tried at Middletown, February term, 1827, before Peters, J To each of the counts the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of a set-off.
Read the full summary
This was an action of indebitatus assumpsit for money paid, for money lent, and for goods sold and delivered ; tried at Middletown, February term, 1827, before Peters, J To each of the counts the defendant pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of a set-off. It was proved, on the trial, that the defendant was indebted to Bull & Nichols, of whom the plaintiff is the survivor, for money paid, in the sum of 310 dollars, 3 cents ; for money lent, 30 dollars ; and upon an account stated, consisting of a great variety of items, amounting to more than 17,000 dollars, a balance of 523 dollars, 83…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
Though there is no count upon an insimul computassent, yet as the defendant had given notice of a set-off, it was competent for the jury to have made the set-off as claimed by the defendant; so that instead of a balance of 523 dollars, 83 cents, upon said account, there would have been found due to the defendant upon said account a sum more than sufficient to extinguish the claims of the plaintiff for money paid and lent; which would have entitled the defendant to a verdict.
I, therefore, advise a new trial.
Daggett, J.
To give the utmost effect to the acknowledgment of the defendant, it was…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Miller v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1818
3Cited by5 opinions
- Pulsifer v. HotchkissSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- McKinster v. HitchcookNebraska Supreme Court · 1886
- McAlpin v. LeeSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1837
- Nichols v. AlsopSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1834
- Newell v. WrightSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831