Raleigh v. Raleigh

Citations

• 35 Ill. 512

Syllabus

<p>1. Set-off—in equity. Courts of equity will not enforce a set-off not allowed by law, unless the party seeking it can show some equitable ground for being protected against his adversary’s demand. The mere existence of cross-demands is not sufficient.</p> <p>2. The insolvency of the party against whom the set-off is claimed is a ground for the exercise of equitable jurisdiction.</p> <p>3. So where there has been a mutual credit given by each upon the footing of the debt of the other, so that a just presumption arises that the one is understood by the parties to go in liquidation or set-off of the other.</p> <p>4. It is not necessary to show a distinct agreement that the ono demand shall be applied in liquidation or in set-off of the other, in order to establish a mutual credit between the parties. It is sufficient to show that the credit was given under circumstances warranting the conclusion that the parties acted upon the understanding that such application was to be made.</p> <p>5. In this case a note was given by two copartners, who afterwards dissolved their copartnership, ono of them taking the assets and agreeing to pay the debts. The holder of this note knew of the arrangement and from that time treated the partner who was to pay the debts as his sole debtor. At the time the note was given the payee was indebted to this partner for board, and after the dissolution continued to board with him, and from time to time promised to bring the note and make a settlement of it and the account: and the note was not finally presented for payment for more than two years after it was due. And, moreover, it was understood between the parties that the one debt should be applied in satisfaction of the other. These facts established an equitable ground for a set-off of the account against the note.</p>