Case ID: wright_1/html/0614-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "LANE, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*PUTNAM’S EXECUTOR v. CLARK.
    Setoff — notice—act dispensing with proof — act of limitations of this and other states — pleading and evidence.
    An offset must be made in this state by notice, it cannot be pleaded.
    The statute dispensing with proof in certain cases does not apply to matters introduced under a setoff.
    A right of action accrued to parties in another state is barred by the limitation laws of that state.
    When questions of limitation arise under a notice of setoff, they are to be determined by proof, not by pleading.
    Debt, on a note dated in November-, 1815. Plea, nil debet, with notice of setoff. After plaintiff had rested—
    
      Fox, for the defendant, offered,
    under the notice, an account with evidence that it had been presented to the plaintiff, and that he said he would allow $50, and also a note without proof of execution.
    
      King, for the plaintiff,
    objects to the account, that it was barred by the statute of limitations in six years. The action accrued in Massachusetts, and he produced- an authenticated copy of the act of that state. lie insisted, that if the defendant would bring himself within any exception of the' act, he should have pleaded the statute and shown the exception.
    
      Fox contra.
   LANE, J.

An offset under our law must come in under notice, it cannot be pleaded. The statute dispensing with proof does not reach the admission of evidence under a notice, and therefore does not apply to this case. The account by the Massachusetts law is barred, and that act under the provisions of our law governs the case. These questions, when they arise under a notice, are to be determined by proof, not by plea.

Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.