Hall v. Cook's Administrator
Supreme Court of Alabama
THE defendant in error, as the administrator of Jesse W. Norwood, deceased, declared against the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Wilcox, on a promissory note or due bill. The case was fried on an issue upon the pleas of non assumpsit, set-off and payment. On the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken by the plaintiff in error, to the ruling of the presiding judge.
Read the full summary
THE defendant in error, as the administrator of Jesse W. Norwood, deceased, declared against the plaintiff in the Circuit Court of Wilcox, on a promissory note or due bill. The case was fried on an issue upon the pleas of non assumpsit, set-off and payment. On the trial, a bill of exceptions was taken by the plaintiff in error, to the ruling of the presiding judge. The defendant in error having shown a due bill for two hundred dollars, made by the plaintiff to his intestate, the plaintiff then proved a greater amount of sets-off than the claim sued on: whereupon the defendant in error,…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— The only question here raised is, did the circuit court err in receiving the evidence objected to by the plaintiff in error; The right to prove a set-off at the trial of a cause, and thus diminish or defeat a recovery, did not exist at'the common law, but was given by statute. [Montague on set-off 5—15; Chandler v. Drew, 2 N. H. Rep. 469.] For the purpose then, of ascertaining the extent to which this right is allowed, reference must be had to the statute itself. Our Legislative acts upon the subject, have all been embodied into one, and provide that, “ In all cases, where there are or…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hubbard v. SanbornSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1822
3Cited by3 opinions
- Duramus v. HarrisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- Hudnall ex rel. Redus v. ScottSupreme Court of Alabama · 1841
- Boyett v. . VaughanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878