case Whitaker against rush a debt can be set off against another if they be in  different right lib Reg b foe b at the roll that June lsir John bush by his  will give pound to his son John bush and give the rest of his estate to his  son Samuel and make he executor John assign over the legacy to the plaintiff  ambler er p bill for payment of the pound and interest the defendant say that  John be indebt to he on a partnership account and for money lend and insist on  not be oblige to pay to the plaintiff more than what shall be due on the  balance of account see bishop v church atk S c hill ms Vol p nom bishop v Owen  Medlicot v bow Ves see also Rankin v Barnard mad Cheetham v crook m you sir  Thomas clarke master of the roll have take time to consider of it give his  opinion general question whether the defendant have a right to deduct the  money due to he out of the legacy see how the law stand where mutual demand  between party in their own right it be a rule of justice to set one debt off  against another in the Roman law dig title d de compensation that rule do not  prevail in England for many year the deal between bankrupt and other person  first give occasion to its be introduce in England by stat g c S as to set off  in case of bankruptcy see g c p b see ex part Stephens Ves ex part hanson Ves  ex part boss buck Addis v knight mere ambler equity take it up but with  limitation and restriction and require that there shall be a connection  between the demand in Downham v matthews pre Ch dougl Lord Macclesfield say  that the mutual deal raise a presumption that the one shall be set off against  the other then come the statute which give court of law the power to allow  setoff in case of mutual demand but still it be under restriction as in cod  title l where there be a deposit on the one side it can be detain as against a  demand by way of debt so in sir George mackenzie Inst of the Scotch law setoff  can only be between debtor and creditor in their own right so be dig S l apply  these rule to this case saint there be no connection between the demand d No  presumptive evidence of a agreement or intention that one shall be set off  against the other part of the debt be due on seven note some before the will  and other before the death of the father those sum can not be advance on the  faith of the legacy three sum be advance upon the death of the father if they  have be advance on credit of the legacy Samuel will not have take note but a  receipt for so much in part of the legacy there be no case where a debt in one  right have be set off against a debt in another right it be say the  partnership account ought to be set off but in dig title l whoever per  exception kill to be able in a recompense non to come the devise be to Robert  bush and Samuel against who the bill be file the plaintiff be assignee under a  deed of trust for payment of Robert bush debt Samuel by his answer state that  both before and subsequent to the assignment he have advance Robert bush  several sum of money which be unpay and that he have become joint bind with he  for the payment of other sum which he shall be oblige to pay exceed the sum of  pound and that he subsequent have a right to set off the money so due to he  decree declare the plaintiff entitle to receive satisfaction for the say  legacy of pound with interest from the defendant Samuel bush and direct that  he shall pay they their cost of the suit to be tax in the case of Meglionetti  v royal exchange insurance company at the roll hill Vac Feb sir I Jekyll say  the rule of do equity and have equity be to be understand of particular equity  and where they relate to one and the same thing and a special or particular  equity can be bar by a general equity as if to a demand of a debt the  defendant shall say the other have injure he in a trespass or on other account  foreign to the thing in demand for this will breed great confusion hill ms p  the case of a deposit be the only instance in which compensation be not allow  the same exception occur in cod lib title l with this further exception that  compensation be not allow to one who have wrongful obtain possession but it be  allow by that law in all other case where the cause or right of the matter  ambler er p allege in compensation be clear or as it be express by Justin his  constitution extend the right of compensation to such compensation who jure a  perto to bear upon Vid ms in vin Abr vide ms note by serjeant hill