Youngs v. Kent , 2 Sweeny 248 ( 1870 )

By the Court:

Jones, J.

The averments contained in the answer clearly constitute no defense. If there had been so substantial a variance as to render the four barrels less valuable than the sum agreed to be paid therefor, then the difference between the actual value and the price agreed might have been recouped by an answer containing proper averments. But the answer does not set up a recoupment. It is an answer in bar.

Order and judgment affirmed with costs of appeal.