
    Lucore, Administrator, v. Kramer.
    1. Executor and administrator; set-off. In an action in the District Court, by au administrator, on a promissory note executed to the decedent, the defendant may plead as a set-off, without leave of the County Court, an unsettled account against the decedent, which might, before his death, have been plead by defendant as a set-off in an action upon the note.
    
      Appeal from Limn District Court.
    
    Wednesday, June 19.
    Rueus H. Lucore died in December, 1863, intestate; in January thereafter letters of administration were granted to his widow, Sarah A. Lucore, who, as administratrix, in March, 1865, sued the defendant on a note of $130.30, executed by him to the decedent, April 2,1855, and drawing interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. The defendant held an unsettled account against the decedent, running from the 9th of April, 1855, to the 28th of December, 1860, consisting of various articles of household furniture; purchased by the decedent, in his life-time, of him, and for certain repairs made by defendant on the same, amounting to $167.85. This he pleads as a set-off to plaintiff’s demand. To this set-off, as a defense, the plaintiff demurs, upon the ground that the District Court could have no original jurisdiction of defendant’s claim, except with the consent and by the leave of the County Court, which was not obtained.
    The demurrer was overruled and the plaintiff appeals.
    
      Smyth <& Yoimg for the appellants.
    
      Preston & Son for the appellee.
   Lowe, Ch. J.

There was no eiTor in overruling the demurrer. The defendant’s claim, as a set-off, existed long before the death of Rufus IT. Lucore, the payee of the note. Had suit been brought upon this note in his life-time, the defendant’s right of set-off would be unquestioned. The death of Lucore does not have the effect to repeal or supersede this right; the doctrine being, that mutual claims compensate each other. The amount which may be due, is always the balance left after deducting the lesser from the greater sum. If in tills case the defendant’s claim should exceed that of the plaintiff’s, the judgment rendered in his favor can only be collected as other demands againt the estate.

Affirmed.  