4 D.C. 449
Decided March 15, 1834
RepleviN. Issue upon the plea of nothing in arrear. The premises belonged to Burgess in common with the other heirs of Crawford. The demise to the plaintiff was by Burgess alone. The plaintiff offered to prove accounts for money paid to some of the other heirs, as payments on account of rent. objected ; and contended that there can be no set-off for avowry for rent; and if there could be, it is not pleaded, and no notice has been given.
Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1943
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1834-03-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →
¶1was of opinion that the allowance by Mr. Burgess of similar payments to other heirs, was evidence, admissible to the jury, that Burgess had agreed to allow these.
¶2But Thruston, J., thinking the evidence was not sufficient to be left to the jury, (and there was no other evidence of such an agreement,) the evidence of the payment to the other heirs was not submitted to the jury.
¶3Verdict for defendant.