Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Ind. 280

Armstrong v. Caesar

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1880

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1880-11-15

<p>Statute of Limitations. —Account. — Set-Off. —Payment.—Pleading.— A plea of payment or set-off is npt subject to tbe statute of limitations.</p>

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1898

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1880-11-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Woods, J.

¶1— Suit on an account. The appellant Felix answered , claiming a set-off of an account against the appellee, which had been assigned to said appellant by Ari Armstrong, who ivas made a party to answer as to his interest. Reply, general denial, and six years’ statute of limitations.

¶2*281The court gave the following instruction:

“5. So, in this case, you will determine how much, if any, of defendant’s claim accrued within six years prior to September 22d, 1877, when it was set up in this case as a set-off. That is, you may go back six years from the time the account was offered as a set-off here, and any item that the defendant has established to your satisfaction within this six years, he is entitled to a finding for,” etc.

¶3This is palpably erroneous. By section 214 of the code, “A party to any action may plead or reply a set-off or payment to the amount of any cause of action or defence, notwithstanding such set-off or payment is barred by the statute.” We can not declare the rule more plainly or more authoritatively.

¶4Judgment reversed, with costs.

/72/ind/280 · .json · Public domain