Rapier v. Holland

1 Minor 176
Supreme Court of Alabama·Decided December 15, 1823·Published

Opinion

Chief Justice Lipscomb

delivered the opinion of the Court.

If we were to admit that the special replication of the [177] plaintiff was bad, we should be bound to look back to the first Error of the party demurring : there can be no doubt but that the defendants’ plea of set-off was bad, and would have been so held on general demurrer. In an action on a promise made to an administrator, a debt due from his intestate cannot be set off: the demands are in different rights : to set off the last against the first might do injustice to the rights of other creditors, and with our Statutes as to insolvent estates, &c.(a) would tend to involve estates in endless confusion.

Coalter, for plaintiff in Error. Martin, for defendant in Error.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Footnotes

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

Rapier v. Holland, 1 Minor 176 (Ala. 1823).

1 Minor 176 (Rapier v. Holland) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.