Francis v. Rand
Supreme Court of Connecticut
IN ERROR. This was abill in chancery, brought by Daniel Rand, against Francis, for a set-off. At the term of the superior court, in February, 1827, Daniel, Richard and Robert Rand, partners in trade under the firm of R. 4 D. Rand 4 Uo., recovered judgment, in an action of book debt, against Francis, for the sum of 730 dollars, 25 cents. At the same term, Francis recovered judgment, in an action of trespass, against Daniel Rand, for 117 dollars, 56 cents.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR. This was abill in chancery, brought by Daniel Rand, against Francis, for a set-off. At the term of the superior court, in February, 1827, Daniel, Richard and Robert Rand, partners in trade under the firm of R. 4 D. Rand 4 Uo., recovered judgment, in an action of book debt, against Francis, for the sum of 730 dollars, 25 cents. At the same term, Francis recovered judgment, in an action of trespass, against Daniel Rand, for 117 dollars, 56 cents. Robert Rand, on the 8th of March, 1827, and Richard Rand, on the I3th of August, 1827, assigned and transferred to Daniel Rand all the right…
1Opinion of the Court
Hosmer, Ch. J.
I shall waive a decision of the question of lien made in this case, as being unnecessary, and confine my observations to the claim of set off.
By the statute, set-offs are allowed in the case of mutual debts only ; and “ no debt claimed by assignment shall be set off, unless the plaintiff had notice, at the time of the commencement of the action, that such debt was due to the defendant.” Stat. 43, 4. The assignment to the plaintiff, of which the defendant had no such notice, must be laid out of the question, as having no effect in this case ; and indeed, in the argument, no…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Palmer v. GreenSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1825
3Cited by2 opinions
- Stewart v. FlowersMississippi Supreme Court · 1870
- Pitkin v. PitkinSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831