Bull v. Hopkins
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, fr.om a justice’s court. Hopkins sued Bull before the justice, and declared f°r money paid and laid out, for the use of defendant. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and that the same 1 1 ’ demand had been pleaded by way of set-off, to a suit . , brought by Bull against Hopkins. On the trial, the demand was proved by the admission of the defendant; an¿ that the set-off had been exhibited at the former triaI> and rejected by the jury.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, fr.om a justice’s court. Hopkins sued Bull before the justice, and declared f°r money paid and laid out, for the use of defendant. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit, and that the same 1 1 ’ demand had been pleaded by way of set-off, to a suit . , brought by Bull against Hopkins. On the trial, the demand was proved by the admission of the defendant; an¿ that the set-off had been exhibited at the former triaI> and rejected by the jury. The justice, by a supplementary return, made under a rule of court, stated# that- the payment of money by Hopkins for Bull, was…
1Per curiam
The justice, in his supplementary return, refers to, and adopts, as correct and true, the facts stated in the affidavit of Hopkins; and from those-facts it appears, that the plaintiff’s demand below accrued subsequent to the former trial; and arose from the payment of money for the defendant’s use, which could not have been legally set off at the former trial, and so the former trial was no bar.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by12 opinions
- Wisconsin v. TorinusSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1881
- Hatch v. BentonNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- McFarlane v. CushmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1867
- Dillinger v. KelleySupreme Court of Missouri · 1884
- Kane v. FisherSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.