Case ID: f-cas_20/html/0865-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      THE COURT", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Case No. 11,886.
    ROBBINS et al. v. UPTON.
    [5 Cranch, C. C. 498.] 
    
    Circuit Court, District of Columbia.
    Nov. Term, 1838.
    Bail — Set-Off—Affidavit of Amount Due— Indorser.
    1. In a question of bail, the court will not take into consideration a set-off claimed by the defendant. In a suit upon protested bills of exchange, the court will not require an affidavit of the amount due upon the bills, in order to hold the defendant to special bail.
    2. It seems to be no objection to bail, that he is indorser of the paper upon which the suit is brought.
    Assumpsit [by Robbins &McKnight against Upton] upon protested bills of exchange drawn by the defendant.
    Mr. Bradley, for defendant,
    offered to show a set-off, by way of mitigating the amount for which the bail should justify.
    THE COURT (nem. con.) refused to consider the set-off.
    Mr. Bradley then contended,
    that the plaintiff must make affidavit of the amount due upon the protested bills.
   THE COURT

and bar said tliat it was never required by tbe practice of this court.

Mr. Bradley contended that it was no objection to bail, that he was indorser upon the bills, and cited Petersd. Bail, 281.

To this THE COURT seemed to assent.