Case Name: Douglas against Hoag
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1806-05
Citations: 1 Johns. 283
Docket Number: 
Parties: Douglas against Hoag.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 283–286

Head Matter:
Douglas against Hoag.
fore a^ustice^it Is a Soud Plea ln bal’> that the defendant had menceSn^T1" lion against the another jusdee ™ which the plaintiff ouste to have set-off Jlis demand-
FROM the return made to the certiorari in this cause, it appeared, that Dousrlas, the defendant below, was sued , A. . . - . , , . , , by Hoag, m an action of assumpsit; and pleaded to the plaintiff’s declaration, that previous to the commencement of that action, he had brought an action against Hoag, before another justice of the peace, in a plea of trespass on the case, and that the summons had been duly served on „ , - , . . _ Hoag, prior to the commencement of this action. On a demurrer to the plea, the same was overruled by the justice, and a judgment rendered against Douglas. A motion was now made to reverse the judgment; and the case was submitted to the decision of the court, without any argument.

Opinion:
Spencer, J.
The error assigned in this case, is, that the justice improperly overruled the plea of the pendency of another suit before another justice. The suit thus alleged to be pending, had been so far instituted, that a summons had been served. To any other court than that of a justice, it would be a frivolous objection, that one party had commenced a suit against the other, because, though the defendant, in the first suit, may set-off his demand, yet he cannot be obliged to do so, nor does he forfeit his debt, if he omit it. It is supposed, that the 9th section of the $25 act,' gives a right.to the party who has first sued out process, to coerce the defendant to submit to the tribunal which has been first resorted to, and there to Set-off his demand.
The section referred to, undoubtedly, requires the defendant .to set-off his demand at the trial, and if he neglect or refuse so to do, he is precluded from any action to recover the same, unless it exceeds ¡§25. But in this case, there had been no neglect or refusal to plead and set-off; it is true, the plaintiff in error had acquired a priority, but this, by no part of the act, precluded the defendant in error from taking out a process, returnable at a day prior to that on which the other was returnable. I admit that such practice may be attended with vexation, but to apply a corrective, is solely within the power of the legislature. I cannot say, that ah act which precludes a party's demand, if not brought for-word at the trial, shall be construed to mean to preclude his suing for that demand, when there has been no trial, nor any neglect or refusal to off-set k. The judgment below ought to be affirmed.