Tate v. Tate
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of JErie county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by defendant in error, before a justice of the peace. After hearing, judgment for the plaintiff below for $10,00 and costs. There had been mutual dealings between the parties for many years ; each had accounts against the other; some on both sides were legal book accounts, and some were not.
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of JErie county. This was an action of assumpsit, brought by defendant in error, before a justice of the peace. After hearing, judgment for the plaintiff below for $10,00 and costs. There had been mutual dealings between the parties for many years ; each had accounts against the other; some on both sides were legal book accounts, and some were not. It appeared that on the trial before the justice, each party exhibited claims against the other. When the case was on trial in the Common Pleas, after the plaintiff had gone through with his evidence, the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion.
- Per Curiam.
— The court was in error in rejecting the defendant’s set-off. He is not restricted on appeal to the set-off relied on before the justice, else he would be barred of a claim never litigated, by a record in which there is no judgment. He is not barred, because of not including these set-offs in his bill or specification before the justice; for here the trial is de novo, and to exclude it here for want of specification, is to bar it entirely, whereas, in ordinary cases he would merely be put to his separate action. Excluding set-offs for want of specification, is not at all…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Lyons v. BarnettSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1922
- Weiner v. SchwartzSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1925
- Pennsylvania Supply Co. v. Silver, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1929
- Wanamaker v. Beamesderfer, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1923