Smith v. Ruecastle
Supreme Court of New Jersey
IN ERROR. The action in the court below was brought on a sealed bill, given by Ruecastle to Smith, for £25 8s. 2d., dated 27 th December, 1788. The defendant pleaded — 1. Non-assumpsit. 2. Payment. 3. The statute of limitations; — and gave notice, that, under the plea of payment, he would give in evidence, that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of £50, for goods sold, money paid, work done, and money due on an account stated.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. The action in the court below was brought on a sealed bill, given by Ruecastle to Smith, for £25 8s. 2d., dated 27 th December, 1788. The defendant pleaded — 1. Non-assumpsit. 2. Payment. 3. The statute of limitations; — and gave notice, that, under the plea of payment, he would give in evidence, that the plaintiff was indebted to him in the sum of £50, for goods sold, money paid, work done, and money due on an account stated. The errors appearing on the bill of exceptions were — 1. That the defendant was permitted to give in evidence, under his plea of payment, an account, one item…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Kinsey, O. J.
(After stating the case.) — -I am at a loss to conceive upon what grounds the first objection taken in this case can be sustained. In England the party may or may not set off his debt against the plaintiff’s claim. Baskerville v. Brown, (2 Burr. 1229). There is nothing *431in their law to render it compulsory upon him. In New Jersey he must set off, or lose his debt. When, therefore, goods are delivered to a less amount than the party delivering them owes to the other, it is, under the equity of our law, a payment for so much of his debt, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1820
3Cited by1 opinion
- Nordco, Inc. v. StateNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1957