Bishop v. Goodhart
Bishop v. Goodhart
Opinion of the Court
W e are not convinced that there is any error in this record that would justify a reversal of the judgment. The offers of evidence recited in the first and second specifications were rightly rejected. There was no error in refusing to affirm defendants’ points as presented, nor in refusing to answer either of them more specifically than was done in the general charge. Neither of them could have been affirmed without qualification, and hence it would not have been error to have refused them both. The general charge, including the portions recited in the fifth and sixth specifications, was quite as favorable to the defendants as they had any just reason to expect. The evidence on which they relied was not sufficient to have justified the jury in finding that they were entitled to any other credit on the judgment than the $92.20 that was admitted to be correct. Neither of the assignments of error is sustained.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- WM. BISHOP v. ALEX. GOODHART
- Cited By
- 5 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. In a scire facias to revive a judgment, an offer to prove as a set-off an item of indebtedness of the plaintiff to the defendant, is inadmissible, unless followed by evidence that the plaintiff accepted and acknowledged the item as a credit upon the judgment in suit. 2. Proof of the declarations of the judgment plaintiff, now deceased, that an indebtedness by him to the defendant should be credited on the judgment, is also inadmissible, when the declarations were made with reference to a long settlement with defendant of accounts embracing the indebtedness referred to. 3. Where points for instructions are presented which cannot be affirmed without qualification, but instructions upon the questions raised by them are given in the general charge as favorably to the proponent as ho is entitled to, arefusal to answer the points specifically as requested is not reversible error.