Parsons v. Root

Decided February 15, 1874

Supreme Court of Connecticut · decided 1874-02-15

R was factorized as the debtor of F. At the time of the service of the process he owed F, but had at the time a contract with F upon R’s performance of which F would become largely indebted to him. This contract was not then performed and nothing was due upon it, but it had since been fully performed by R, and he had a claim upon it against F much larger than the debt originally owed by him to F. Held that R could not set off his claim against F. R’s right of set-off was the same that it would have been if a suit had been brought by F at the time the factorizing process was served. And held that it made no difference that F was insolvent.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently May 1982

1 district ·

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-02-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Park, C. J.

¶1The garnishee’s right of set-off in this case is the same as it would have been if an action had been brought by French & Nichols against him to recover the debt sought to be appropriated by the plaintiff in satisfaction of his claim against them. Fitch v. Waite, 5 Conn., 117; Harris v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 35 Conn., 311. At the date of the garnishment the garnishee had no claim on his contract with French & Nichols that could have been set-off on a suit brought by them against him. Finch v. Ives, 28 Conn., 120 ; Henry v. *167Butler, 32 Conn., 141. There was nothing due at that time, and it was uncertain whether any thing ever would be due. The rule of set-off is the same at law and in equity, and in either would deny the right in this case, claimed by the garnishee. Spurr v. Snyder, 35 Conn., 172.

¶2There is manifest error in the judgment complained of, and it is reversed.

¶3In this opinion the other judges concurred.