Jacks v. Moore
1 Yeates 391
Opinion
If the defendant had pleaded the set-off specially, he would have been under no necessity to have given any other written notice. It would then have been incumbent on the plaintiff to have replied the statute of limitations. Here the set*off is not pleaded; and under the case cited, r*oqo the evidence may be well objected to, on the mere notice of set-off. Evidence overruled.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Jacks v. Moore, 1 Yeates 391 (Pa. 1794).
1 Yeates 391 (Jacks v. Moore) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Taylor v. Gould
57 Pa. 152 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1868)
Hinkley v. Walters
8 Watts 260 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1839)
Alsop v. Nichols
9 Conn. 365 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1832)