¶1The set-off claimed by Fowler cannot be allowed; for it would be manifestly unjust. The assignment by King to Ives was for a valuable consideration ; and Fowler having had notice that it was about to be made, should have given notice of his counter demand against King, in season to prevent Ives from giving up his remedy upon execution. Instead of which he was silent not only then, but on the day when the assignment was made, having had previous notice for a week. Further, after formal notice that the assignment was actually made, he does not object, but conceals his intention, until a suit is commenced against him and the other defendants by Ivts. This conduct must be considered in equity, as a waiver of any right to set off, and an acquiescence in the. assignment.
16 Mass. 397
King v. Fowler
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided September 15, 1820
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1820-09-15
The parties in these actions agreed that judgment should be entered in both of them upon the default of the defendants respectively, the damages in each to be assessed by the Court, upon the following facts agreed.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1820-09-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1942
7 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →