Foot v. Martin

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Foot v. Martin

42 Mass. 273

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedSeptember 15, 1840

StatusPublished

This text of 42 Mass. 273 (Foot v. Martin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Foot v. Martin, 42 Mass. 273 (Mass. 1840).

Pincite

Opinion

Shaw, C. J.

Without considering the objection, that this motion is not seasonably made, the court are of opinion that, the [274]*274proposed set-off, if filed, could not be maintained. It does not appear that Mrs. Foot was debtor for the expenses incurred in support of her grandchildren. She entered into a special engagement that those expenses should be paid out of her estate, after her decease ; but this creates no obligation to pay them during her life. Besides, the stipulation that, in case Mr. Brown should advance $ 1200, on a particular contingency, to one of them, it should be deducted out of notes held by the plaintiff against him, carries with it a strong implication, that the other advances made by him were not to be so deducted. To allow then, by way of set-off, a deduction from those notes, would be manifestly against the intentions of the parties.

Motion overruled.

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

Shaw, C. J.

Without considering the objection, that this motion is not seasonably made, the court are of opinion that, the [274]*274proposed set-off, if filed, could not be maintained. It does not appear that Mrs. Foot was debtor for the expenses incurred in support of her grandchildren. She entered into a special engagement that those expenses should be paid out of her estate, after her decease ; but this creates no obligation to pay them during her life. Besides, the stipulation that, in case Mr. Brown should advance $ 1200, on a particular contingency, to one of them, it should be deducted out of notes held by the plaintiff against him, carries with it a strong implication, that the other advances made by him were not to be so deducted. To allow then, by way of set-off, a deduction from those notes, would be manifestly against the intentions of the parties.

Motion overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 Mass. 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foot-v-martin-mass-1840.