Case Name: Charles Duff v. Charles Wells and Wife
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1871-12-09
Citations: 7 Heisk. 17
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Duff v. Charles Wells and Wife.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 54
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
Charles Duff v. Charles Wells and Wife.
Pbactice. Setting off judgments. The right to set off judgments against each other can not he so exercised as to circumvent the exemption laws.
PROM WILLIAMSON.
From the Circuit Court, November Term, 1868. W. H. S. Hill, J.
In March, 1866, Florence Whitley obtained a judgment in the Circuit Court against Charles Duff. In July, 1866, she brought an action of replevin against him, before a Justice for a cow, in which, on appeal, judgment was rendered by the Circuit Court against her and Charles Wells, with whom she had intermarried pending the appeal, for the value of the cow, with damages for its detention. Thereupon Wells and wife moved the Court to set off the judgment of the latter against Duff against his judgment for the value of the cow and the damages for its detention, which the Court allowed to be done, and from which Duff appealed. Whilst the record is not very explicit upon this point, it seems that the cow in question was entitled to the protection of the exemption laws.
D. Campbell for plaintiff.
Thomas & Hicks for defendants.

Opinion:
Tui-t-NEY J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the motion to allow the set off discharged.
The statute of this State and the general rule that judgments of the same court may be set off against each other, are applicable only to such judgments as are founded upon matters ex contractu; elá& a party by his tortious act, and with a purpose to defeat the exemption laws, might possess himself of his debtor's property, be sued therefor, allow judgment to go against him for damages for the value and detention of the property, and then upon motion satisfy such judgment by having it credited upon the judgment in his favor against the party whose property he had converted; and thus defeat the policy of the law exempting, for the benefit of families, property from execution.