Parsons v. Root

| Conn. | Feb 15, 1874

Park, C. J.

The garnishee’s right of set-off in this case is the same as it would have been if an action had been brought by French & Nichols against him to recover the debt sought to be appropriated by the plaintiff in satisfaction of his claim against them. Fitch v. Waite, 5 Conn., 117" court="Conn." date_filed="1823-07-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/fitch-v-waite-6573794?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6573794">5 Conn., 117; Harris v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 35 Conn., 311. At the date of the garnishment the garnishee had no claim on his contract with French & Nichols that could have been set-off on a suit brought by them against him. Finch v. Ives, 28 Conn., 120 ; Henry v. Butler, 32 Conn., 141. There was nothing due at that time, and it was uncertain whether any thing ever would be due. The rule of set-off is the same at law and in equity, and in either would deny the right in this case, claimed by the garnishee. Spurr v. Snyder, 35 Conn., 172" court="Conn." date_filed="1868-08-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/spurr-v-snyder-6578743?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="6578743">35 Conn., 172.

There is manifest error in the judgment complained of, and it is reversed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.