Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

57 Mich. 374

McKevitte v. Feige

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 17, 1885

Michigan Supreme Court · decided 1885-06-17

<p> Recoupment. </p> <p>Eecoupment must be confined to the specific transaction in dispute, unless the notice thereof alleges damages in other matters.</p>

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1888

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1885-06-17

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Cooley, O. J.

¶1Plaintiff sued to recover commissions in selling furniture for defendant. He claimed, by his bill of particulars, commissions on two specified sales. The defendant, with his plea of the general issue, gave notice of recoupment without any particulars.

¶2The suit was begun in justice’s court, appealed to and tried in the circuit court. On the trial the defendant sought to recoup damages alleged to have been sustained by him in the case of other sales than the two in question, but made under the same employment. The court held recoupment under the notice, must be restricted to the two sales. This ruling is complained of, but we think it correct. If the defendant intended to go into other transactions, heshouldhave made his notice specific.

¶3Other errors are complained of, but we think if the defendant is wronged in the case, it is by the action of the jury, not of the court.

¶4The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.
/57/mich/374 · .json · Public domain