Burnham v. Tucker
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
The suit was on a note .given by Tucker to David Webster, dated June 22, 1835, payable on demand, and indorsed to the plaintiff after June 1, 1837. The note was afterwards assigned by Burnham to James Rangcly.
Read the full summary
The suit was on a note .given by Tucker to David Webster, dated June 22, 1835, payable on demand, and indorsed to the plaintiff after June 1, 1837. The note was afterwards assigned by Burnham to James Rangcly. Tucker claimed the benefit of a sot-off to the amount of certain notes given by David Webster to him long before the note in suit was made, but Tucker had not filed any account in set-off, and moved for a continuance until judgment might be obtained against 'Webster, that there might be a set-off made. . The parties agreed upon an auditor to report the facts, and that on the return of…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the Court was drawn up by
Shepley J.
This is an action on a promissory note, made by the defendant, and payable to David Webster, or order, and by him indorsed to the plaintiff after it was over due. The defendant held a note payable to himself, and signed by Webster, and also one signed by Webster and another, both bearing date before the note in suit. These notes were not filed in set-off, but by an agreement between the parties the sot-off is to be allowed if a judgment upon them obtained by the defendant against Webster could be set off against the judgment in this suit.
Accord…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Greene v. DarlingU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Rhode Island · 1828
- Clark v. LeachMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by2 opinions
- Leavitt v. PeabodySupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1882
- Scholle v. PinoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1898