Hosmer v. Brattle

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Hosmer v. Brattle

1 Root 347

DecidedDecember 15, 1791

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Root 347 (Hosmer v. Brattle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hosmer v. Brattle, 1 Root 347 (Colo. 1791).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of tbe County Court — That tbe plea in bar was sufficient. Tbe same matters were assigned for error which were contained in tbe special demurrer.

Judgment — That there is nothing erroneous in tbe judgment complained of. It is tbe province of tbe commissioners to offset counterclaims, between tbe creditors and tbe deceased, and to report only tbe balance they find due. Tbe administrator may contest tbe note at common law, notwithstanding such offset; and if tbe note is avoided then tbe remedy will be clear for tbe plaintiff to recover tbe book-debt.

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

Judgment of tbe County Court — That tbe plea in bar was sufficient. Tbe same matters were assigned for error which were contained in tbe special demurrer.

Judgment — That there is nothing erroneous in tbe judgment complained of. It is tbe province of tbe commissioners to offset counterclaims, between tbe creditors and tbe deceased, and to report only tbe balance they find due. Tbe administrator may contest tbe note at common law, notwithstanding such offset; and if tbe note is avoided then tbe remedy will be clear for tbe plaintiff to recover tbe book-debt.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Root 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hosmer-v-brattle-conn-1791.