2 Ala. 569 | Ala. | 1841
— In the case of Hall v. Cook, 1 Ala. Rep. 629, we held that the plaintiff could not avail himself of a set-off against a set-off pleaded, or given in evidence, by the defendant; but was restricted to showing that the set-off was not admissible, or was a debt which he was not bound to pay. Tried by the rule laid down in that case, the defence offered by the plaintiff to the set-off given in evidence by the defen-, dant, was clearly inadmissible.
The attempt here was, to reduce the amount of the set-off by showing an error in the original transaction, which led to
Let the judgment be affirmed.