Legal Opinion

Sturtevant v. Dowson

Oregon Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1923PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMcBRIDE, C. J.

It will be observed that the action upon the note was begun June 1, 1921, and the alleged breach of the agreement mentioned did not occur until October 13, 1921. We are clear that these counterclaims for alleged breach of the contract not to engage in business were not proper and have no place in this case. We do not find any precedent for allowing a counterclaim upon a cause of action which had not matured at the time of the commencement of plaintiff’s action, and such seems to be the condition of the authorities: 1 Sutherland’s Pleading, Practice and Forms, § 628, p. 374; Gannon v.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Waugenheim v. GrahamCalifornia Supreme Court · 1870
  2. Reed v. Chubb Brothers, Barrows & Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1859
  3. McGuire v. EdsallMontana Supreme Court · 1894
  4. McGuire v. LambIdaho Supreme Court · 1888
  5. Gannon v. DoughertyCalifornia Supreme Court · 1871

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Lewis v. MerrillOregon Supreme Court · 1961
  2. Ryska v. AndersonIdaho Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Burton v. BurtonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
  4. Sturtevant v. DowsonOregon Supreme Court · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API