Leach v. Lambeth
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from, Jackson Circuit Court. Hon. B. H. Neely, Circuit Judge, presiding. Simmons being an infant and not bound by his contract, Leach was solely bound on the note and could set off what Lambeth owed- The authorities are express, and the principle certainly reasonable. Slocum vs. Hooker, 12 Barb. 566. Burgess vs. Merrill, 4 Taunt. 468. Gibbs vs. Merrill, ib. 307. Referred to ch. 150, Dig. sec. 1. Harrell vs.. Trammell, 4 Ark. 602. Woodruff et al. vs. State, 2 Eng. 333.
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Walker
This is an action of debt brought by Lambeth against Leach and Simmons upon a writing obligatory, executed by them to the plaintiff.
The defendant, Simmons pleaded infancy, and the other defendant, nil debet, payment and set-off' Upon the first two pleas issue was taken: to the third, the plaintiff demurred, upon the ground that there was not such mutual indebtedness between the plaintiff and the defendant, set forth in the plea, as to constitute a valid set-off under the statute; in this, that the contract sued upon was executed by Simmons and Leach, and that pleaded in set-off was in favor…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Trammell v. HarrellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1842
- Powell v. HogueCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1848
3Cited by13 opinions
- Melander v. Western National BankCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1913
- Eyrich v. Capital State BankMississippi Supreme Court · 1889
- Wilson v. Exchange BankSupreme Court of Georgia · 1905
- Piotrowski v. CzerwinskiWisconsin Supreme Court · 1909
- McKay v. H. A. Hall & Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1912
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.