Leitz v. Hohman
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 58, Jan. T., 1903. by plaintiff, from judgment of Superior Court, Oct. T., 1902, No. 91, reversing judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Jan. T., 1902, No. 15, discharging rule to set off judgment against judgment in case of William Leitz v. John W. Hoffman. Appeal from Superior Court. The facts appear from the opinion of the Supreme Court and the report in 22 Pa. Superior Ct. 1. Error assigned was the judgment of the Superior Court.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Chief Justice Mitchell,
It is settled and unquestionable law that the set-off of one judgment against another is not a legal right even under our defalcation act, but is allowed by the courts under their inherent powers in the administration of justice and is governed by the principles of equity. In Wellock v. Cowan, 16 S. & It. 318, it is said per curiam: “ Set-off had no existence at the common law, relief being had only in equity. Since the statute this branch of chancery jurisdiction has not been exercised where relief might be had at law; although for a particular equity not…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ramsey's AppealSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Aber's PetitionSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Burns v. ThornburghSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1834
- Clement v. City of PhiladelphiaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1891
- Horton & Heil v. MillerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1863
3Cited by10 opinions
- Pierce, to Use v. KasemanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Sunwest Bank of Roswell, N.A. v. Miller's Performance Warehouse, Inc.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1991
- Black v. Whitewater Commercial & Savings BankWisconsin Supreme Court · 1925
- Great American Insurance v. Fred J. Gallagher Construction Co.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1972
- Shenango Systems Solutions, Inc. v. Micros-Systems, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.