Belleau v. Thompson (1867) · DecisionDepot

Belleau v. Thompson

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Supreme Court Oct 15, 1867Published

Before: Sanderson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant's answer did not constitute a counterclaim because the facts alleged would not entitle the defendant to affirmative relief in a separate action against the plaintiff.

Issues

Whether the matter contained in the defendant's answer constitutes a counterclaim upon which affirmative relief can be granted.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A counter claim is a cause of action in favor of the defendant upon which he might have sued the plaintiff and obtained affirmative relief in a separate action.”

“the plaintiff* notwithstanding she may not be able to recover against Stow, is entitled to hold the note as against Thompson, and to hold the indorsement of Stow for the purpose of malting title.”

Synopsis

Counted Claim.—A counter claim is a cause of action in favor of the defendant upon which he might have sued the plaintiff, and obtained affirmative relief, in a separate action.

Idem.—Where, to an action commenced April 5th, 1867, by B. against T. and S., charging T. and S* as joint makers of a promissory note made and delivered to plaintiff March 22d, 1864, and by its terms payable on demand, S. answering separately, denied the averments of the complaint, and set up that T. made the note sued on, which S., at T.’s request and for T.’s accommodation solely, indorsed and delivered to B. to be negotiated; that no demand for payment had ever been made of T. or notice of dishonor of the note served on S., and prayed judgment that S. is in nowise indebted or liable to plaintiff on said note : held3 that the answer did not constitute a counter claim.

By the Court, Sanderson, J.: The matter contained in the answer of Stow may constitute a good defence to the action, hut it does not constitute a counter claim upon which he can obtain any relief against the plaintiff. A counter claim is a cause of action in favor of the defendant upon which he might have sued the plaintiff and obtained affirmative relief in a separate action. Had Stow sued the plaintiff in a separate action, upon the facts stated in his answer, what relief could he have obtained ? Nothing short of a cancellation of the note, or his indorsement thereon, would afford him’ any relief. He could have obtained neither, for the plaintiff* notwithstanding she may not be able to recover against Stow, is entitled to hold the note as against Thompson, and to hold the indorsement of Stow for the purpose of malting title.

Order affirmed.

Neither Mr. Justice Shatter nor Mr. Chief Justice Currey expressed an opinion.

Belleau v. Thompson

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief