Rawson's Administratrix v. Copland
New York Court of Chancery
The bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, to the intestate, Edward B. Rawson, on the 25th of September, 1837, accompanied by a bond of the same date. The defence was a set-off claimed against the intestate and his estate, under the circumstances stated in the decision.
Read the full summary
The bill was filed to foreclose a mortgage executed by the defendant, to the intestate, Edward B. Rawson, on the 25th of September, 1837, accompanied by a bond of the same date. The defence was a set-off claimed against the intestate and his estate, under the circumstances stated in the decision. Besides the principal objection to the proposed set-off, it appeared that no actual payment of the deficiency on the Prince, mortgages, was made by the defendant to Bennem ; but the latter accepted as full payment and satisfaction of the demand, the de-. fendant’s bond and mortgage to him bn other…
1Opinion of the Court
The Assistant Vice-Chancellor.
The revised statutes provide that in suits brought by executors and administrators, demands existing against their testators or intestates, and-belonging to the defendant at the time of their death, may be set off by the defendant in the same manner as if the action had been brought by and in the name of the deceased. (2 R. S. 355, § 23.)
In suits for the payment or recovery of money, in the court of chancery, set-offs are to be allowed in the same manner and with the like effect, as in actions at law. (2 ibid. 174, § 40.)
It has been decided in this court, that on…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Chapman v. RobertsonNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Halsey v. ReedNew York Court of Chancery · 1842
- In re NegusNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Port v. JacksonNew York Supreme Court · 1819
- New-York State Bank v. FletcherNew York Supreme Court · 1830
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bentley v. VanderheydenNew York Court of Appeals · 1866