Moylan v. Lamothe

The obvious purpose which the plaintiff sought to accomplish, by filing the strange pleading above set forth, was to prevent a trial of the defendant’s claim for recoupment in this state and compel her to litigate it before the courts of another jurisdiction. This would be in violation of the principles of equitable set-off as set forth in Arcadia &c. Mills v. Company, 89 N. H. 188, where it is said, “One of the many circumstances which demand this extension [of the doctrine of set-off] is ‘the non-residence of the party against whom the set-off is asserted.’”

When a plaintiff has chosen his…