Legal Opinion

Kinney v. Robison

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1884PublishedCited by 8 opinions

Error to Tan Burén. (Mills, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiffs bring error.

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.

Plaintiffs being a firm known as Kinney, Adams & Co., sued defendant for items of an account verified under the statute. Defendant put in a plea accompanied by a sworn statement of set-off in a larger amount. Defendant recovered judgment for a balance, and plaintiffs bring error.

Objection is made that there was no regular notice of set-off. This objection has no force. The set-off was not only claimed, but sworn to. By stipulation the correctness of both sides of the account was admitted, but the question of the admissibility of the set-off was left open.

It is claimed that it could not be…

2Cited by8 opinions

  1. Kalamazoo Trust Co. v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Gauche v. MilbrathWisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
  3. Wheeler v. HathewayMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Bates v. LaneMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Kinney v. TaborMichigan Supreme Court · 1886

3 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