ART. 75.] PLEADINGS—SET-OFF. 1095

defendant, according as such excess is found in favor of the one
or the other of these parties, if such excess be sufficient to support
a judgment in the court where the cause is tried according to its
established jurisdiction, otherwise the finding of such excess to be
due shall be sufficient prima facie evidence of the fact of .indeb-
tedness for such excess, as upon an award of arbitrators in a suit
in a court having jurisdiction to try and determine the same.

Dyer v. Dorsey, 1 G & J. 440. Turner v. Plowden, 2 G. & J. 455. Burch o,
State, 4 G. & J 444. McCreary s McCreary, 5 G. & J 147. Annan v. Houck,
4 Gill, 331. Milburn v. Guyther, 8 Gill, 93 Simmons v. Tongue, 3 Bl. 341.
Lane v. Fallen, 16 Md. 352. Scott v. Scott, 17 Md 91. State v. B & O. R. R.
Co , 34 Md. 374. C. & P R R. Co. v.Slack, 45 Md 161. Boor v.Wilson, 48
Md. 315. Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md 313.

F. G. L., (1860,) art. 75, sec. 13. 1785, ch. 46, sec 7. 1876, ch. 398.

13. In any suit upon simple contract the defendant may file in
bar, or plead in discount, any claim he may have against the
plaintiff, proved according to law, which may be of equal or
superior nature to the plaintiff's claim, and judgment shall be
given for the difference found, or other consequence follow
thereon, as in the preceding section is provided.

Clarke v. Magruder, 2 H. & J 77. Baltimore Ins Co. v. McPadon, 4 H. &
J. 31. Glenn v. Smith, 2 G. & J. 493. Burch v. State, 4 G & J. 444. Sangs
ton v. Maitland, 11 G. & J. 297. Hall's Admr. v. Creswell, 12 G. & J. 51. Mil-
burn v. Guyther, 8 Gill, 93. Wilson v. Keedy, 8 Gill, 197. Simmons v. Tongue,
3 Bl. 341. Foley v. Mason, 6 Md. 51. Beall v. Pearre, 12 Md. 550. Abbott 0.
Gatch, 13 Md 332. Carroll's Admr. v. Quynn, 13 Md. 390. Lane v. Fallen,
16 Md 352. Scott v. Scott, 17 Md. 91. Ins. Co. v. Dalrymple, 25 Md. 309.
Dowler v. Cushwa, 27 Md. 355. Smith v. Wash. Gas Light Co., 31 Md. 17.
Warfield v. Booth, 33 Md 72 Miller v. Lea, 35 Md 406. Fenniman v. Loney,
40 Md 475. Rice v. Forsyth, 41 Md 408 C & P. R. R. Co. v. Slack, 45 Md.
161. Lee v. Rutledge, 51 Md. 313. Tyrrell v. Tyrrell, 64 Md. 169. Hearn v.
Cullin, 54 Md. 542. Simmons v. Haas, 56 Md 166.

1876, ch. 845.

14. No party, otherwise entitled to sue and recover in any suit
at law upon or under any promissory note, bill of exchange, bill
of lading, warehouse or storage receipt, or other negotiable instru-
ment, shall be precluded from so recovering by reason of his
inability from any cause to produce such instrument in evidence
at the trial, or surrender the same to the defendant; provided,
always, that the absence of such instrument shall be sufficiently