Needham v. Pratt
Ohio Supreme Court
Ebbob to District Court of Lake County. I. The Claim for damages was not a valid counter-claim. Rev. Stats., § 5072; Evans v. Hall, 1 Handy, 434, 437; Cleveland Rubber Co. v. Bradford, 8 Cin. Law Bulletin, 35. II. It was not a valid set-off. It was founded in tort. Pierce v. Carey, 37 Wis., 232; Cooley bn Torts, 432; 2 Addison on Torts, 1012, 1013, and so could not be the subject of set-off.
Read the full summary
Ebbob to District Court of Lake County. I. The Claim for damages was not a valid counter-claim. Rev. Stats., § 5072; Evans v. Hall, 1 Handy, 434, 437; Cleveland Rubber Co. v. Bradford, 8 Cin. Law Bulletin, 35. II. It was not a valid set-off. It was founded in tort. Pierce v. Carey, 37 Wis., 232; Cooley bn Torts, 432; 2 Addison on Torts, 1012, 1013, and so could not be the subject of set-off. Pierce v. Hoffman’, 4 Wis., 290; Anderson v. Case, 28 Wis., 505; Green & Kelly’s Code Pleading, sections 851 and 852; Hall’s Appeal, 40 Pa. St., 409; Harris v. Rivers, 53 Ind., 216; 7 Wait's Actions ánd…
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, J.
Needham & Son, the plaintiffs in error, were plaintiffs below. The action in the common pleas was on an account to recover from defendant’s intestate the price of two organs sold him on the 2d day of October, 1875. The defendant, admitting the claim made in the petition, set up in his answer a cause of action for a sum greater than the plaintiff’s demand, arising upon an alleged breach of warranty made in the sale of two other organs, by them, to said intestate, on the 1st day of July, 1875. The warranty, it is alleged» was that the organs were of good quality and workmanship, and would in…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Boyer v. ClarkNebraska Supreme Court · 1873
- Stevens v. AbleSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Shropshire v. ConradCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1859