Chambliss v. Matthews
Mississippi Supreme Court
Error to the Circuit Court of Tate County. Hon. Sam. Powel, Judge. The maker of a promissory note, by virtue of Code 1871, § 2228, can plead any set-off “ made, had, or possessed against the same previous to notice of assignment.” To hold that the assignor’s note cannot be so pleaded, because not due when notice was given, is to add terms to the statute. If due when pleaded, the set-off is valid.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Tate County. Hon. Sam. Powel, Judge. The maker of a promissory note, by virtue of Code 1871, § 2228, can plead any set-off “ made, had, or possessed against the same previous to notice of assignment.” To hold that the assignor’s note cannot be so pleaded, because not due when notice was given, is to add terms to the statute. If due when pleaded, the set-off is valid. Haughton v. Leary, 3 Dev. & B. 21; Mi-zell v. Moore, 7 Ired. 255; Brazelton v. Brooks, 2 Head, 194 ; Walker v. McKay, 2 Met. (Ky.) 294; Houghton v. Houghton, 37 Maine, 72; Nettles v. Huggins, 8 Kich.…
1Opinion of the CourtGeorge, C. J.
On Oct. 8, 1878, Chambliss, the plaintiff in error, made his note payable on demand to one Moss for sixty dollars. *307After the note became due, to wit, on Jan. 9, 1879, Moss indorsed this note .to Matthews, the defendant in error. On this last mentioned day, Moss gave his note to Tate & Co, for sixty dollars and ninety-eight cents, payable one day after date, maturing, by the allowance of the three days of grace, on Jan. 13, 1879. On the day this last note was made, viz., Jan. 9, 1879, Tate & Co. transferred it to Chambliss, the plaintiff in error, and on the next day, Matthews, the assignee of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. . KunzmullerNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
3Cited by2 opinions
- Peyton v. Planters' Compress Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1886
- Chiccaralli v. LoveMississippi Supreme Court · 1934