Legal Opinion

Gilmore v. Reed

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided January 4, 1875PublishedCited by 19 opinions

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Olarion county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 130. This was an action of assumpsit commenced May 15th 1872, by Thomas Reed against David Gilmore and others, partners as Gilmore & Sons. According to the plaintiff’s history of the case, the action was for a balance alleged by the plaintiff to be due him by the defendants on a settlement.

Read the full summary

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Olarion county: Of October and November Term 1874, No. 130. This was an action of assumpsit commenced May 15th 1872, by Thomas Reed against David Gilmore and others, partners as Gilmore & Sons. According to the plaintiff’s history of the case, the action was for a balance alleged by the plaintiff to be due him by the defendants on a settlement. Neither the history of the case nor the evidence contained on the paper-book show the settlement nor give the amount alleged to be due. It appeared that the defendants pleaded set-off and gave notice of it, and the…

1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mercur

This ease presents the question whether the commencement of a suit stops the running of the Statute of Limitations against a claim, which the defendant interposes as a sét-off, or whether it is not stopped until the set-off is pleaded.

The first section of the Act of 1705, Purd. Dig. 488, pl. 1, makes it lawful for a defendant to give in evidence, “ any bond, bill, receipt, account or bargain,” which he held against the plaintiff at the commencement of the suit. He is thus permitted, but not required, to introduce his set-off in a suit brought in a court of record. An omission to do so, is no…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Stroh v. UhrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
  2. M'Credy v. FeySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
  3. Filbert v. HawkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
  4. Hinkley v. WaltersSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
  5. Muirhead v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Consolidated National Bank v. McManusSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1907
  2. Woodland Oil Co. v. A. M. Byers & Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1909
  3. Davis Cookie Co., Inc. v. WasleySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1989
  4. Ott v. DuPlan Silk Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  5. Severance v. Heyl & PattersonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1934

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

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API