Goss v. Calkins
Charles W. Goss v. Oscar Calkins
Goss v. Calkins, 42 N.E. 96 (Mass. 1895)
Headnotes
Answer — Defence of Payment.
In an action of contract, the defence of payment is open under an answer to a declaration in set-off alleging “ that, if the defendant shall prove that plaintiff ever owed the defendant the amounts set forth in said counts, he has paid the same in full.”
Summary
Contract. The defendant filed a declaration in set-off, consisting of four counts upon promissory notes, one count upon an I O U, and a sixth count upon an account annexed. The answer to the declaration in set-off was as follows:
“ And now comes the plaintiff, and for answer to the defendant’s declaration in set-off and to each count therein contained, says that, if the defendant shall prove that plaintiff ever owed the defendant the amounts set forth in said counts, that he has paid the same in full.”
At the trial in the Superior Court, without a jury, before Mason, C. J., the plaintiff offered evidence of payment under this answer, to which the defendant objected, and asked the judge to rule that no evidence of. payment was admissible thereunder. The judge refused so to rule, and ruled that the plaintiff could prove payment thereunder; and the defendant alleged exceptions.
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Allen, J.
This case cannot be distinguished from Swett v. Southworth, 125 Mass. 417 , where it was held that the defence of payment was open under an answer like that in the present case. Exceptions overruled.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 3 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.