Chandler v. Drew
Superior Court of New Hampshire
Assumpsit on a note for $27,27, made by the defendant, dated October 31, 1831, payable to one T. Chandler, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a note for $27,27, made by the defendant, dated October 31, 1831, payable to one T. Chandler, or order, and by him endorsed to the plaintiff. Upon the trial of the cause at October term, 1833, it appeared, that the defendant made the note, and that it was endorsed to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration on the 15th March 1832. It further appeared, that at the time the note was endorsed to the plaintiff, T. Chandler, the endorser was indebted to the defendant on an account in a larger sum than the amount of the note.— The defendant, having given notice that he should avail…
1Opinion of the CourtRichardson, C. J.
delivered the opinion of the court.*
At the common law there was no set-off of the unconnected mutual demands and debts between the parties in an action. Each party had his action to enforce the payment of his claims against the other. The law of set-off, before judgment, is regulated entirely by statute. When the mutual claims of parties have passed into judgments, it is the practice of courts to set-off one judgment against another. This practice does not rest upon any statute, but upon the general jurisdiction of courts over the suitors in them. It is an equitable jurisdiction, frequently…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Simson v. HartCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1816
- Ruggles v. KeelerNew York Supreme Court · 1808
- Ford v. StuartNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Sherman v. CrosbyNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- O'Callaghan v. SawyerNew York Supreme Court · 1809
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Jenness v. BeanSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1839
- Stanley v. ClarkDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire · 1957
- McDuffie v. DameSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1840