|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SIMMONS v. TONGUE. 355
be due, and insists on having allowed as m discount in bar. And,
consequently, it lays upon him to shew how much, if any, is due
on the claim so offered as a discount in bar, in like manner as if
he had instituted an original action for the recovery of the debt
shewn by the account filed in bar, unconnected with any other
claim whatever, (e)
With regard to those cases where some discount in bar has been
admitted in the affidavit of the claimant himself; such an admis-
sion only amounts to an indefinite acknowledgment, that some
such opposing claim may exist, which he, the deponent, is willing
to meet and adjust; (f) but it cannot be received as a concession,
that his own authenticated claim has been entirely satisfied by one
which it does not lay upon him to ascertain; and which he who
holds it, apparently estimates at so low a value as to neglect to
bring forward and establish. The affidavit prescribed by the act
of Assembly in relation to intestates' estates, and which act is taken
as a guide by this court in cases of this sort, requires the deponent
to swear, that he had received no satisfaction, 'except what, if
any, is credited;' (g) but these affidavits credit nothing; and the
deponents leave us distinctly to understand, that it was not in their
power to give credit for any particular amount as a discount from
their claim. And therefore, as in an action of account, if the
defendant refuses to account, the plaintiff shall recover according
to the value mentioned in the declaration: (h) so here, if the party
fails or neglects to shew the amount of the discount to which he
is entitled, the whole claim must be allowed.
I am therefore of opinion, that in all these cases, as well where
an account in bar has been filed by the defendants, and it has not
been regularly authenticated according to the course of the court,
as where a discount in bar has been referred to in the affidavit of
the claimant himself without specifying the amount, it must be
disregarded, and the whole amount of the creditor's claim must be
allowed, as if nothing whatever had been said about any discount
in bar. These directions apply first to claims No. 1, 3, 4, 8, 2i,
29,, 31, 35, 39, 42, 43, 40, 57, 87, 101, 138, 139, 140, 141, 147,
153 and 154; and in the next place to claims No. 41, 56, 58, 86,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(e) Strike's case, 1 Bland, 79; Babington on Set-off, 3.—(f) Kennett v. Mill-
bank, 21 Com. Law Rep. 213; Pattison v. Frazier, 2 Bland, 381, note.-(g) 1798,
ch. 101, sub ch. 9,—(A) Com. Dig. tit. Accompt, E. 15; Babington on Set-off, 3;
Poulter v. Cornwall, 1 Salk, 9; Godfrey 9. Saunders, 3 Wils, 117.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
