Blount v. Windley,
95 U.S. 173 (1877)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Blount v. Windley, 95 U.S. 173 (1877)

Blount v. Windley

95 U.S. 173


1. When no rights of third parties interfere, the extent to which mutual obligations may be set off against each other, and the mode of doing it, are wholly subject to legislative control.

2. A statute, therefore, as that of North Carolina, passed after the bank or its commissioner had obtained a judgment, which authorizes the defendant to set off against it the circulating notes of the bank which he procured after the judgment is, as between him and the bank or its commissioner, valid, and does not impair the obligation of the contract sued on, or of the judgment.

3. But if the rights of either creditors of the bank or other parties interested in the judgment were such that they could exact payment of the judgment in lawful money, the case would be different.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 95 U. S. 174

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.