Chamberlin v. Gorham

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Chamberlin v. Gorham

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 395

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 395 (Chamberlin v. Gorham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chamberlin v. Gorham, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 395 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court held, that this notice of set-off was defective in not specifying the judgments, and that the defendant was precluded under it from proving them, and the payment of them, by him. But

The Court of Errors, (Kent, Chancellor, delivering the opinion of the Court,) held, that the notice of set-off was sufficient, as it contained such a statement of the special matter as prevented the plaintiff from being taken by surprise at the trial.

.Judgment reversed accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The Supreme Court held, that this notice of set-off was defective in not specifying the judgments, and that the defendant was precluded under it from proving them, and the payment of them, by him. But

The Court of Errors, (Kent, Chancellor, delivering the opinion of the Court,) held, that the notice of set-off was sufficient, as it contained such a statement of the special matter as prevented the plaintiff from being taken by surprise at the trial.

.Judgment reversed accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chamberlin-v-gorham-nycterr-1799.