Seifert v. Jones
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from, Franklin Circuit Court. — D. Q. Gale, , Esq_., Special ■ Judge. (1) The respondent was not entitled to recover on his counter-claim or set-off. The action was commenced on October 4, 1877; the set-off pleaded was a note, dated January 25, 1876, payable two years after date. The whole record, including the judgment itself, shows that this note was not due at the time of the commencement of the action.
Read the full summary
Appeal from, Franklin Circuit Court. — D. Q. Gale, , Esq_., Special ■ Judge. (1) The respondent was not entitled to recover on his counter-claim or set-off. The action was commenced on October 4, 1877; the set-off pleaded was a note, dated January 25, 1876, payable two years after date. The whole record, including the judgment itself, shows that this note was not due at the time of the commencement of the action. An off-set cannot be allowed either in law or equity, or under the statute, unless it was due at the time of the commencement of the action ; and where the administrator is the…
1Opinion of the Court
Mabtin, C. —
The point in controversy in this case arises on a counter-claim. Theodore Seifert, as administrator of Mary Wolf, deceased, sued the defendant on a promissory note, payable to his intestate, in -fee sum of $2,300. The defendant, m his answer, admits the execution and delivery, denying, however, that it remanas unpaid. He pleads payments aggregating in amount about $1,850. He next pleads a eounter-elaim, wherein he discloses a promissory note in the sum of $453, executed by said intestate, and William Wolf, her husband, payable to one John B. Busch, and by him endorsed and…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Tiemeyer v. . TurnquistNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Kimm v. WeippertSupreme Court of Missouri · 1870
- Smillie v. . QuinnNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Charter Oak Life Insurance v. BrantSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Baker v. YoungSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Mendenhall v. LeivyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1891