3 Stew. 151 | Ala. | 1830
Under our statutes which regulate and extend the right of set off,
In Rapier, administrator of Mays v. Holland and Bruce,
The offer to set off cannot -bo assimilated to the prosecution of a suit by the party -sued, -and-is therefore not prohibited by the act in regard to insolvent estates, which de-dares, that no suit shall be maintained against an administrator or executor, after the .estate he represents is legally reported insolvent. The defendant does not voluntarily come into Gourt to assert a right; he is passive, and mere-3y asks the Court to permit him to interpose a barrier to the plaintiffs recovery-. •
With regard to the sufficiency of the notice of set off, it may be observed, that the same strictness either of form or substance, cannot be required in a notice oí set off as would be essential to a special plea. It is enough if it inform the opposite party with reasonable certainty of the demands proposed to be set off on the trial. The notice in this case we believe sufficient for that purpose-; and do therefore reverse the judgment, and remand the cause to the Court below.
Reversed and remanded
Laws of Ala. 457, 69.
Laws
Minor's Ala. Rep. 176.
Minor’s Ala Rep, 321.