Hobson v. Croft
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Dec. 12. Assumpsit on a note for $2,000, dated April 1st, 1841, payable on demand, to the order of H. Hobson, agent. Plea, payment. The defendant gave in evidence, under .a general objection, entries made by plaintiff, who was then in his employ as elerk, in his borrowed and loan-book, showing sums borrowed and. returned, resulting in a balance of $2,000, on the 30th.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Dec. 12. Assumpsit on a note for $2,000, dated April 1st, 1841, payable on demand, to the order of H. Hobson, agent. Plea, payment. The defendant gave in evidence, under .a general objection, entries made by plaintiff, who was then in his employ as elerk, in his borrowed and loan-book, showing sums borrowed and. returned, resulting in a balance of $2,000, on the 30th. January, 1841. Also, entries in the cash-book made by plaintiff, showing the balance of the loan was credited by a debit to the account of H. Hobson, agent, on the 30th January,…
1Opinion of the CourtBell, J.
The defendant’s plea is payment. It is very certain that under this plea, without notice of special matter, a defendant cannot give evidence of facts which may constitute a special equitable defence. He is confined to proof of matters tending to show actual payment, but he may show such payment in other things than money, accepted in discharge of the original indebtedness: as, for example, by the legal or equitable transfer of dioses in action, though the sums represented by them may have been lost through the negligence of the transferree: Hamilton v. Moore, 4 W. & S. 570. Here the defence…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hamilton v. MooreSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1842
3Cited by1 opinion
- Benner v. Fire Ass'nSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1910