Bentz v. Bentz
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county : Of May Term 1880, No. 202. Assumpsit by George Z. Bentz and Jane E. Bentz, his wife, in her own right, against Abner W. Bentz, on the following note: “$3000. Carlisle, Pa., January *8th 1872. “ For value received I promise to pay to George Z. Bentz and Jane E. Bentz the sum of three thousand dollars, with interest from the 1st of April, A. D. 1872, at the rate of six per cent, annually, during the term of their…
Read the full summary
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland county : Of May Term 1880, No. 202. Assumpsit by George Z. Bentz and Jane E. Bentz, his wife, in her own right, against Abner W. Bentz, on the following note: “$3000. Carlisle, Pa., January *8th 1872. “ For value received I promise to pay to George Z. Bentz and Jane E. Bentz the sum of three thousand dollars, with interest from the 1st of April, A. D. 1872, at the rate of six per cent, annually, during the term of their natural lives, and after their death to their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns. “ (Signed) A. W. Bentz.” At the…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Mercur
This alleged grievance is the denial of a set-off. The suit was on a note made by the plaintiff in error to the defendants in error as joint payees. Suit was brought in their joint names, and the set-off offered was a debt against one of them. The court rejected the offer.
As a general rule, set-off is admissible only where it is in the same right and between the same parties: Milliken & Co. v. Gardner, 1 Wright 456. To this rule there are some exceptions. Among them may be stated, when suit is brought by a surviving partner, a set-off against the late firm is allowable. So defendants sued…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Archer v. DunnSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Watson v. HenselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1838
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cochran v. CutterSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1901
- Schalcher v. BergdollSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1910