Jacks v. Moore

1 Yeates 391
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided September 15, 1794·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per cur.

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.

Cited and followed in 8 Watts, 264, and 57 Pa., 157. Verdict pro quer. for 107I. 7s. 5d. debt, and 6d. costs. Mr. Montgomery, pro qtier. Mr. Hopkins, pro def.

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)