
    [Merrimack,
    June, 1882.]
    Wallace v. Moulton.
    Assumpsit. The defendant was in the employ of Webster, and was taken sick. Wallace was called to attend her as a physician, and charged the defendant six dollars, which Webster paid without Moulton’s request, understanding that it would be allowed in settlement with Moulton for her labor. Subsequently, Moulton sued Webster on account for the labor, and Webster filed a set-off, which included the item of six dollars paid Wallace. After the set-off was filed, Moulton offered to pay Wallace the six dollars, but Wallace refused to take it, saying Webster had paid her, and gave Moulton a receipted bill. The police court disallowed the set-off, on the ground that the item was not one of mutual account, nor in the same right with Moulton’s claim. Then Webster, with Wallace’s consent, and in the name of Wallace, brought this action in the police court for the six dollars. The police court found for the plaintiff, and ordered judgment, from which the defendant appealed. No question was made but that the services of Wallace were reasonably worth six dollars, and that the defendant was owing her that sum, when Webster, in good faith, paid it, reasonably supposing that it would be allowed in settlement for the defendant’s labor. The defendant has never paid the six dollars to any one. Judgment was rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendant filed exceptions.
    
      Leach Stevens, for the plaintiff.
    
      Osgood ¿> Prescott, for the defendant.
   Clabk, J.

The defendant does not attempt to sustain her exceptions, and we see no error of law in this case.

Exceptions overruled.

Allen J„ did not sit: the others concurred.  