Case ID: scl_16/html/0423-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Mr. Justice Hug eh.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francis Hinds, ads. Administrator Joseph David.
    
      Action on a promissoiy note given to plaintiffs .intestate-. Dé* fend ant offered as a sett off, that he had signed « note as sure* for intestate, in Ms life time and paid if fince Ms deaihi Held a mutual credit, i’uhich might be set off under the dis- . count act.
    
    This was an action brought .on anote of hand, given to plaintiff’s intestate by defendant. The defendant offered in evidence, by way of discount, the amount of a joint an.d several note of hand, given by intestate and defendant to one Campbell Sffibbs, and proved. by Stubbs, that the defendant subscribed the note as the security of intestate, and .that tlie amount of said note was paid by defendant, since the deatjh of intestate.
    The court directed the jury that the payment made-by de* fendant since the death of intestate, could not be allowed as a discouutto a debt due the int estate.in.hig lifetime; and jthe jury found according to such .direction.
    
      The defendant moved for a new trial, because his honor misdirected the jury,
   The opinionof the court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Hug eh.

The act of 1759, authorises a defendant to give in evidence by way of discount,” any account “ reckoning, demand, cause, matte> or thing, provided they be mutual.” These words at least embracé credits-. The question then is, did the defendant, by becoming security to the note of the intestate, give him credit. The security would not have been required,had the credit of the intestate been sufficient. It was to give additional credit to the note, that'the defendant signed it. In giving credit to the note he gave credit to the intestate, and it is not improbable that he was induced to do so by the credk already given him by the intestate.

This then is a case of mutual credit, and it is unnecessary to enquire how much more than mutual credit is embraced in the words of our discount act. See the case' of Assignees of Vaughn, vs. Smith, 3 T. R. 507, n. The motion is granted.'