Cuo-ia, per O’Neall, J.
The plaintiff’s motion is concluded by the case of Ewart v. Kerr, (Rice R. 203.) But, apart from that authority, there could not be a doubt of the defendant’s discount being a proper one. It has long been the practice to allow the injury done to goods in transportation to be set off against the claim for freight. The defendant’s cross demand arises ex contractu,■ and, as such, may always be set up in discount under our law, (P. L. 246; 4 Stat. So. Ca. 76,) which admits “ any account, reckoning, demand, cause, matter, or thing.” If' the damages arise ex delicto, they cannot be so set off; and this distinction, if kept in mind, will prevent the profession from supposing that there is any conflict between the case of Ewart v. Kerr and that of Johnson v. Wideman, (Rice R. 325.)
See 10 Rich. 320. An.
Yecidon and Macbeth, for the motion;
Walker, contra.
Gantt, Richardson, Earle and Butler, JJ., concurred.