Case Name: LONGAFELT against BARTSHER
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1832-06
Citations: 3 Pen. & W. 492
Docket Number: 
Parties: LONGAFELT against BARTSHER.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases adjudged in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (Penrose & Watts)
Volume: 3
Pages: 492–493

Head Matter:
LONGAFELT against BARTSHER.
A defendant cannot set-off a debt due to any one but himself; set-off can, b,e made , only by and between the parties. '
Error to Northumberland county.
This was an action of assumpsit, in which Frederick Longafelt was plaintiff, and the e'xecutórs of Henry JBartsher were defendants, brought to recover a reasonable compensation,fo¡r the us.e of a house and barn and thirty acres of land for three years.' Previously to the origin of the present alleged cause of action, a settlement was made between Longafelt and JBártsher, in which a balance was found to be due to Bartsher;; for this balance, b,y some arrangement between them, Christian Light gave Bartsher his, note. Subsequently to the origin of the present alleged cause of action, Light was sued by Bartsher for the amount of the said note, and paid the judgment, and then sued Longafelt for the amount thus paid for him, and recovered the money. ’’ It was con-:' tended by the defendant in this suit, that in those suits the present claim of the plaintiff should have been aet-o,ff. On this subject the court below thus instructed the, jury; . ■
•‘The defendant contends, that subsequently to, the plain tiff’s, leaving the premises, a settlement was made between the plaintiff and Henry Bartsher; that the settlement was made by Christian Light, -who gave his note for the balance due to, Henry B.artsher, arid that this note wa.s paid and’ the money recovered of' (Christian Light, after which C. Light brought a suit against F. Longafelt the plaintiff, for the recovery of the money'he had paid for him, and during all these proceedings, the plaintiff never brought in this demand. If the plaintiff had a full knowledge bfthese proceedings, particularly of the settlement made by C. Light for him with H■ Bartsher, and Light having afterwards been sued for the money, and being obliged to pay it, and never brought forward the present,demand against H. Bartsher, he would be barred from the recovery by the act of Assembly; but if he did not know of the settlement of C. Light for. him with H>. Bartsher, and C. Light’s giving his note, he would not-be barred.”
The opinion thus delivered was assigned for error.
Bellas-im plaintiff in error.
Grenough for defendant in error.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
When Light gave Bartsher his note for Longafelf's debt, he made it his own, and could not, in the action on the note, have set-off a debt due to any one but himself. Set-off can be made only by and between the parties; and Longafelt was a party neither at law nor in equity. As> then, neither Longafelt nor Light could have set-off the subject matter of this action, the former is nqt tq be barred for having left undone what the law would nqt have permitted him tq do. There is error, therefore, in the secqnd, hut nqt in the first point.
Judgment reversed and a venife de novo awarded.