Ferguson v. Bassett
New York Supreme Court
—This is a motion made to set off one judgment against another, and the motion is founded on affidavits from which the following facts appear: On the 22d day of March, 1849, the plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant for $55, at the Delaware circuit held by me, and prior to which time, to wit, on the 1st day of October, 1847, one Allen H. Davis recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court, against the said Samuel Ferguson for $67.78, and which was recovered for the…
Read the full summary
—This is a motion made to set off one judgment against another, and the motion is founded on affidavits from which the following facts appear: On the 22d day of March, 1849, the plaintiff recovered a verdict against the defendant for $55, at the Delaware circuit held by me, and prior to which time, to wit, on the 1st day of October, 1847, one Allen H. Davis recovered a judgment in the Supreme Court, against the said Samuel Ferguson for $67.78, and which was recovered for the costs of defending a suit in that court, brought by Ferguson against him. On the 22d day of March, 1849, and…
1Opinion of the Court
Mason, Justice.
In allowing a set-off of judgments, courts of law have proceeded upon the equity of the statute authorizing set-offs, and their power .consists in the authority they hold over suitors in their courts. The doctrine of the common law courts was that suitors might ask the interference of courts of law in effecting a set-off not “ ex debito justitie” hut ex gratia curie. (Simson v. Hart, 14 J. R. 68.) And as these motions in the common law courts were addressed very much to the discretion of the courts, a refusal of the common law courts to direct a set-off was not considered as…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- White v. SkinnerNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Cooper v. BigalowNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- People ex rel. Fry v. Judges of the Court of Common PleasNew York Supreme Court · 1827
3Cited by1 opinion
- Jacobsen v. MillerNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1924