Case ID: tenn_22/html/0405-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gkeen, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Key vs. Wilson.
    The defendant offered as a set-off, a note, the collection of which was eujohiej / Held that it was not admissible.
    Assumpsit in the circuit court of Bedford, by Wilson against Key. Pleas, non-assumpsit, payment and set-off.
    Wilson had executed his note for $200 to Rutledge, and Rutledge had assigned the note to Key. The collection of this note had been enjoined, and the bill was still pending. The note was offered as a set-off and rejected by S. Anderson presiding judge.
    Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appealed in error.
    
      Whiteside, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Ready, for the defendant in error.
   Gkeen, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

On the trial in this cause, the defendant offered in evidence under the plea of set-off, a note executed by the plaintiff to David Rutledge, and by him assigned to the defendant — but which note has been enjoined by the plaintiff, and the injunction bill is still pending. The court refused to permit the note to be read in evidence, in which we think he was clearly right. A suit is already pending in relation to this claim, probably in the only forum that can properly try the questions involved in the case.

The defendant ought not to have been permitted to bring his cross-action upon the same note by proving it as an off-set in this suit, when it is in litigation in the injunction bill.

If the plaintiff has no good defence, the defendant will get his judgment for the money enjoined against the complainant and his sureties. Affirm the judgment.