Peale v. Clark
Utah Supreme Court
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Son. F. C. Loofbourow, - Judge. Action by R. H. Peale against H. P. Clark. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer to counterclaim. Defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from District Court, Third District; Son. F. C. Loofbourow, - Judge. Action by R. H. Peale against H. P. Clark. Judgment for plaintiff on demurrer to counterclaim. Defendant appeals. RESPONDENT’S POINTS It is settled almost everywhere, that the counterclaim which is available to a defendant must be between him and the plaintiff (C. L. U. 2969) and not between him and plaintiff and others, as in this case: (34 Cyc. pp. 712, section k. 715, section 2. Loundes v. Bank (Conn.), 66 Atl. 514). In Wood v. Brush, 72 Cal. 224,13 Pac. 627, it was held that a partnership transaction, or a right…
1Opinion of the CourtFrick, C. J.
The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendant to recover upon a promissory note. The defendant answered the complaint, admitting the indebtedness evidenced by said note, and set up a counterclaim, in which he averred that the plaintiff was indebted to him in a sum in excess of the amount claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff interposed a demurrer to the counterclaim: (1) That the facts stated are insufficient; (2) that the matter set forth as a counterclaim “is not a proper subject of counterclaim in this action, for the same is in the nature of an action for an accounting and…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hill v. FinniganCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Roberts v. DonovanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1886
- Hook v. WhiteCalifornia Supreme Court · 1868
- Gammon v. BunnellUtah Supreme Court · 1900
- O'Keefe v. WeberOregon Supreme Court · 1886
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Christensen v. ChristensenUtah Supreme Court · 1918
- State v. California Packing CorporationUtah Supreme Court · 1944