One judgment may be set off against another upon motion.
Summary
At the Jan. term 1831 of the supreme court, Hadley’s administrators recovered a judgment against Hickman for eighteen hundred and sixty dollars, eighty and two third cents; at the same term, Hickman recovered a judgment against Hadley’s administrators for nine hundred and seventy two dollars, twenty two cents.
A motion was made by George S. Yerger, the counsel of Hadley’s administrators, that the amount of Hickman’s judgment should be setofi against the judgment of the administrators against him; and that an execution should be ordered to issue for the balance due upon the latter judgment. In support of the motion was cited Spence vs. White, 1 John. Cases 102. Porter vs. Lane, John, Rep, 35?. Schermerhorn vs. Schermerhorn, 3 Cain. Rep. 190. Wells vs. Crabb, Buller’s Nisi Prius 336. 2 Blk. Rep. 826, 827. Glaister vs. Hewer, 8 D. and East 69. Hall vs. Ody, 2 B. and P. 28. Barker vs. Barham, Blk. Rep. 896. 3 Wilson Rep, 396. Dinnie vs. Elliott, 2 H. Blk. Rep. 587.
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.
Per Curiam.
The authorities cited are clear and decisive that the motion ought to be sustained. It is therefore ordered, that the amount of Hickman’s judgment be set off against the judgment of the administrators of Had-ley against him, and that execution issue for the balance.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
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.
Authorities cited 0
No citations to other opinions in this database were found.
