Kent v. Rogers
Supreme Court of Missouri
•Appeal from Buchanan Court of Common Pleas. cited Austin v. Feland, 8 Mo. 309 ; Whaley v. Cope, 4 Mo. 238. I. Mutual debts alone are subjects of set-off. A joint debt can not be set off against a separate debt; nor a separate debt against a joint debt. (Einney v. Turner, 10 Mo. 207 ; State, to use of Cowan, v. Modrel, 15 Mo. 421; Gorden v. Bourne, 2 Johns. 155.) The ease of Austin v. Eeland is not in point, and if it were, the later cases overrule it.
1Opinion of the CourtScott, Judge
The only point in this case is, whether a set-off of a debt due Dillon, one of two joint defendants, can be pleaded against the demand of the plaintiff. The case of Austin v. Feland, 8 Mo. 309, was decided on the authority of Whaley & Blackwell v. Cope, 4 Mo. 283. The case of Austin v. Feland, in its circumstances, is exactly like that now under consideration. The justice and great convenience of allowing a set-off under the circumstances are apparent, and the course is sanctioned by the authority of respectable courts. The case of Finney v. Turner, 10 Mo. 208, does not profess to overrule…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Austin v. FelandSupreme Court of Missouri · 1843
- State v. RobertsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1851
3Cited by5 opinions
- Mortland v. HoltonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1869
- State ex rel. Kendrick v. HudsonMissouri Court of Appeals · 1901
- Brodek v. FarnumWashington Supreme Court · 1895
- Skinker v. SmithMissouri Court of Appeals · 1892
- Wagner v. StockingOhio Supreme Court · 1872