Littell v. Shockley

27 Ky. 245, 4 J.J. Marsh. 245, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 259
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJuly 1, 1830
StatusPublished

This text of 27 Ky. 245 (Littell v. Shockley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Littell v. Shockley, 27 Ky. 245, 4 J.J. Marsh. 245, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 259 (Ky. Ct. App. 1830).

Opinion

Chief Justice Robertson,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Shockley sued EÍiza Littell, on a promissory note. She pleaded payment with leave, to prove any fact which would be ¡admissible underany valid issue.

On the trial she exhibited accounts exceeding the note in amount, and purporting to have accrued after its date. She proved facts conducing, in some degree, to establish the justice of the accounts. It was proved that Shockley had drawn off an account against her; but-his account was neither exhibited nor proved.

The circuit court decided that the accounts of Mrs. Littell and all the testimony in relation to them wereiii-[246]*246admissible; and thereupon the jury found a verdict f°r Shockley, for the whole amount of his note. She prosecutes this writ of error to reverse the judgment on this verdict.

A demand for which indebi - tatwassumpsit be*pleaded as a set-off to a debt due by ?ote’ Hoggin and Monroe, for appellant; Sanders and Bibb-, for appellee.

A demand may be pleaded as a set off, for which indebitatus assumpsit would he. Whether such action could be maintained on all the accounts or not,isimma-h^terial. It could certainly be maintained on account A, if it was liquidated by the parties, as the jury had a right to infer that it had been, it is not necessary to decide whether indebitatus atsumpsit would lie on the other accounts.

If any of the accounts would have been admissible under a plea of set-oif, and if there was any evidence tending to prove them or any part of them, the court erred in rejecting them and the testimony offered for establishing them. There was evidence. Its effect should have been left to the jury for their consideration. Although it was somewhat general and inconclusive, it was applicable and legal; and therefore ought not to have been excluded.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 Ky. 245, 4 J.J. Marsh. 245, 1830 Ky. LEXIS 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/littell-v-shockley-kyctapp-1830.