Muirhead v. Kirkpatrick

5 Watts & Serg. 506
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 15, 1843·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

— There was no evidence of withdrawal to warrant the leaving of the fact to the jury. The set-off was claimed, and evidence was given in support of it; but the principal witness being deemed incompetent, the defence was abandoned, and the defendant’s counsel retired. Had he meant to reserve the demand for a separate action, he would have said so; but he did not, and the arbitrators consequently passed upon it. A set-off is in the nature of a cross action, and may be withdrawn in analogy to suffering a nonsuit when the evidence is found to be too weak to support it; but like a nonsuit, the withdrawal of it ought to be explicit.

Judgment reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

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

Muirhead v. Kirkpatrick, 5 Watts & Serg. 506 (Pa. 1843).

5 Watts & Serg. 506 (Muirhead v. Kirkpatrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Liebke v. Thomas
24 Mo. App. 24 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1886)
Gilmore v. Reed
76 Pa. 462 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1875)
Tillou v. United States
1 Ct. Cl. 220 (Court of Claims, 1865)