Doe v. Roe

Superior Court of Delaware

Doe v. Roe

7 Del. 321

DecidedJuly 1, 1861

StatusPublished

This text of 7 Del. 321 (Doe v. Roe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Doe v. Roe, 7 Del. 321 (Del. Ct. App. 1861).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court:

We have no doubt as to the general right, or allowance of the principle of recoupment in a case like the present. But the defendant in this action is entitled to recoup, or recover by the' way and in analogy to a plea of set-off against the demand of the plaintiffs, only for such improvements as were made by himself, and not by, or at the cost and expense of another, who is not a party to the action. The objection must therefore be sustained and the evidence proposed to be introduced as to improvements made by Stayton on the premises, must be rejected.

The case afterward went to-the jury and the plaintiffs had a verdict.

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

By the Court:

We have no doubt as to the general right, or allowance of the principle of recoupment in a case like the present. But the defendant in this action is entitled to recoup, or recover by the' way and in analogy to a plea of set-off against the demand of the plaintiffs, only for such improvements as were made by himself, and not by, or at the cost and expense of another, who is not a party to the action. The objection must therefore be sustained and the evidence proposed to be introduced as to improvements made by Stayton on the premises, must be rejected.

The case afterward went to-the jury and the plaintiffs had a verdict.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 Del. 321, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-roe-delsuperct-1861.