Walton v. Lippincott

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Walton v. Lippincott

2 N.J.L. 162

Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided February 15, 1807·Published

Opinion

By the Court.

— It hath been repeatedly adjudged that a plea of payment must be filed in order to let in a set-off. In this ease, not only no plea hath been filed, but the account of the defendants is insufficient; a particular statement of their account should have been made out and delivered to the justice, and not the mere balance.

Judgment reversed.

[150]*150Approved, Walton v. Corlies, Penn. 168.

Cited in McCormick v. Brookfield, 1 South. 71.

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

By the Court.

— It hath been repeatedly adjudged that a plea of payment must be filed in order to let in a set-off. In this ease, not only no plea hath been filed, but the account of the defendants is insufficient; a particular statement of their account should have been made out and delivered to the justice, and not the mere balance.

Judgment reversed.

[150]*150Approved, Walton v. Corlies, Penn. 168.

Cited in McCormick v. Brookfield, 1 South. 71.

Walton v. Lippincott, 2 N.J.L. 162 (N.J. 1807).

Pincite

2 N.J.L. 162 (Walton v. Lippincott) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.