Barclay Investment Corp. v. Lamkin
Missouri Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
CLEMENS, Commissioner.
Lamkin had already sued Barclay, his corporate landlord, when Barclay filed this separate suit against Lamkin and his *169wife. The trial court dismissed Barclay’s petition because Barclay had violated the compulsory counterclaim rule. Barclay has appealed. The down-to-brass-tacks issue is this: Can a defendant get away from the compulsory counterclaim rule by filing a separate suit against the plaintiff and his wife?
The present corporate plaintiffs jointly own and operate a high-rise apartment called Barclay House. (We refer to them in the singular as Barclay.) The present…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Davison v. FarrMissouri Court of Appeals · 1954
- Williams v. KaestnerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1960
- Sturdivant Bank v. Stoddard CountySupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- State Ex Rel. Buchanan v. JensenSupreme Court of Missouri · 1964
- State Ex Rel. MacK v. ScottMissouri Court of Appeals · 1950
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Harris v. NolaMissouri Court of Appeals · 1976
- Allgeier, Martin and Associates v. AshmoreMissouri Court of Appeals · 1974
- Jorgensen v. City of Kansas CityMissouri Court of Appeals · 1987
- Shinn v. Bank of CrockerMissouri Court of Appeals · 1990
- Schneeberger v. Hoette Concrete Construction Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1984
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.