U.S. Supreme Court CRAMOND v. BANK OF U S, 4 U.S. 291 (1803)
4 U.S. 291 (Dall.)
Crammond et al. Executors of Cay,
The Bank of the United States.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
December Term, 1803
THE following case was stated for the opinion of the Court:
'On the nineteenth day of August 1793, David Cay and Andrew Clow, who then carried on business under the firm of Andrew Clow and company, indorsed a note drawn by Henry Darroch, bearing that date, for the sum of eight hundred and fifty-two dollars and eighty-two cents; which note was discounted by the president, directors and company of the bank of the United States, defendants in this action, and the amount paid to the indorsors.
'Before the note became due the drawer, and both the indorsors, died of the yellow fever; and notice of non-payment was duly given to the executors of the surviving partner David Cay.
'On the eleventh of April 1793, Andrew Clow and David Cay laid a foreign attachment on the property of a certain James Brown in the hands of the defendants. Judgment was obtained in December term 1793, in the names of the present plaintiffs, as executors of David Cay, the surviving co-partner. [291-Continued.]
'A writ of inquiry has been issued and the sum of twenty five thousand five hundred and forty-three pounds, two shillings and three pence has been found due to the plaintiffs; judgment was thereupon entered in the usual form. A scire facias issued against the defendants as garnishees, in which, after the general proceedings stated on the record, there was a trial, on the 10th September 1801, when the jury found for the plaintiffs 3354 dollars; and on the same day, judgment nisi was entered.
'The defendants as garnishees of James Brown are in possession of thirteen shares of bank stock, and of the dividends thereon arising and accruing, since the first day of July 1801, which are subject to this attachment. And they have received payment of two hundred and eighty-four dollars, and twenty-seven cents, being a dividend of the estate of Henry Darroch, the drawer of the said note.
'The question for the opinion of the court is whether the defendants in this action, are entitled to set off against the demands of the plaintiffs in this action, the sum of $568 55/100 being the balance of the note unpaid?
After argument, by E. Tilghman and Ingersoll, for the plaintiffs; and by Lewis and Rawle for the defendants,
The COURT (absente SHIPPEN, C. J.) decided that the set-off was inadmissible.