Liebke v. Thomas
Missouri Court of Appeals
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Siiepaed Baeolat, Judge. “A set-off is a cross-action.” “A set-off is not a defence to an action. It is the defendant’s action against the plaintiff.” Whitdicer v. Pope, 48 Ga. 15; Lewis v. Denton, 13 Iowa, 441, 442; (Junan v. Cunan, 40 Ind. 473; Kelly 'o. Gantt, 1 Gilm.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the St. Louis Circuit Court, Siiepaed Baeolat, Judge. “A set-off is a cross-action.” “A set-off is not a defence to an action. It is the defendant’s action against the plaintiff.” Whitdicer v. Pope, 48 Ga. 15; Lewis v. Denton, 13 Iowa, 441, 442; (Junan v. Cunan, 40 Ind. 473; Kelly 'o. Gantt, 1 Gilm. (111.) 649. A counter-claim or a set-off (when it may be barred by the statute of limitations), if not barred at the commencement of the action in which it is pleaded, does not become so afterward, during the pendency of that action. Walker v. Glements, 15 Q. B. (N. ■S.) 1046;…
1Opinion of the CourtThompson, J.
The sole question which arises upon this record is whether the several causes of action stated in the plaintiff’s petition, are barred by the statute of limitations. And, first, do they come within the saving provisions of section 3239, Revised Statutes ? This section, so far as material to the present controversy, reads as follows : “If any action shall have been commenced within the times respectively prescribed in this chapter, and the plaintiff therein suffer a non-suit, or, after a verdict for him, the judgment be arrested, or, after a judgment for him, the same be reversed on appeal or…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stroh v. UhrichSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Nordmanser v. HitchcockSupreme Court of Missouri · 1867
- Filbert v. HawkSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1839
- Turnbull v. WatkinsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1876
- Muirhead v. KirkpatrickSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1843
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Cooper v. BolinSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968