Ward v. Martin
| Decision Date | 11 November 1825 |
| Citation | 19 Ky. 18 |
| Parties | Ward v. Martin. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Assignee. Obligor. Parties. Assignment. Set Off. Evidence. Pleading.
ERROR TO THE CLARKE CIRCUIT COURT, GEO. SHANNON, JUDGE.
Hanson for plaintiffs.
French and Taul for defendant.
Case stated.
This was an action brought in the circuit court, by Martin, to recover one hundred dollars--the amount of a note which was executed to him by Ward.
The trial was had in the circuit court upon an issue taken to a plea of payment, with permission to Ward to avail himself in evidence of any matter which might be pleaded in bar of the action. A verdict was found by the jury for Martin, and judgment rendered against Ward for the amount of the note.
Plea payment with leave to give special matter in evidence.
To reverse that judgment, Ward has prosecuted this writ of error.
The case turns, in this court, upon the correctness of a decision of the court below, upon a question of evidence.
It appears that in the progress of the trial before the jury Ward introduced a witness and offered to prove, that, some time prior to the commencement of the action, Martin, by a parol contract, for a valuable consideration, sold to one White Coxe the note upon which the suit is founded; and that although the action is brought in the name of Martin, it was prosecuted for the benefit of Coxe, to whom, under the contract with Martin, the beneficial interest in the note belonged before, and at, the time the suit was instituted. He also, offered to prove, that, at and before the suit was commenced, the said Coxe was indebted to Ward in a much larger sum than the principal and interest of the note, by account for money before that time laid out and expended by Ward for Coxe, at his special instance and request. The object of Ward, as stated by him to the court below, in offering the foregoing evidence, was to avail himself of the amount due him from Coxe, as a set-off against the demand sued for. But the evidence was objected to by the counsel of Martin, and rejected by the court.
Evidence of set off offered and erroneously rejected.
The question of evidence, upon which the case turns in this court is, therefore, whether or not in rejecting the foregoing evidence which was offered by Ward, the court decided correctly.
Set off may be pleaded of a debt due defendant by the person for whose benefit the suit is...
To continue reading
Request your trial