Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

set-off

Definitions from Case Law · United States Supreme Court

Definitions from Case Law

From 229 U.S. 523 - Studley v. Boylston National Bank · 1913Most cited · 779 citing opinions

definition

in strictness, a set-off is a counterclaim which the defendant may interpose by way of cross-action against the plaintiff. But, broadly speaking, it represents the right which one party has against another to use his claim in full or partial satisfaction of what he owes to the other... it is grounded on the absurdity of making A pay B when B owes A.

How the Supreme Court has restated “set-off”

1810182018401860188019001913 most cited: 229 U.S. 523 - Studley v. Boylston National Bank (1913)
first statedrestated (same sense)departed

Each Supreme Court definition of “set-off,” sized by how often later courts cited it. “Change” is measured by wording overlap with earlier definitions — a rough signal, not a semantic judgment.

How often courts cite the cases defining “set-off”

180018501900195020002030171

Court decisions citing the 5 opinions that defined “set-off” — 931 in all, by decade. Counts are citations to the defining cases as a whole, not verified uses of the term. The dip in the most recent years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the latest years.

All 5 definitions, chronological · 1810–1913

  1. ORIGINAL

    Under this act of assembly it must be a just discount before notice; this could not be a just discount until it became payable. Money cannot be offset before it be due. (Statement of rule under Va. statute.)

    assignee of note; just discount before notice

  2. 1863·68 U.S. 66 - Ryan v. Bindley[p2]· cited 31×

    if the defendant succeeds in proving his set-off, and it is larger than the plaintiff's claim, he is entitled to a judgment for the excess. The parties are concluded by the judgment, and cannot again litigate the same subject-matter, unless the judgment should be reversed, on appeal or writ of error to the Supreme Court.

  3. Right of set-off, properly so called, did not exist at common law, but is founded on the statute of 2 Geo. II, c. 24, s. 4, which in substance and effect enacted that where there were mutual debts between the plaintiff and the defendant, . . . one debt may be set against the other, and such matter may be given in evidence under the general issue, or be pleaded in bar, so that notice shall be given of the sum or debt intended to be offered in evidence.

  4. The right of set-off did not exist at common law, but is founded on the statute of 2 George II, c. 24, s. 4, which in substance and effect provided that where there were mutual debts between the plaintiff and the defendant, one debt may be set against the other, and such matter may be given in evidence under the general issue.