Chamberlin v. Gorham

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 395

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.