Donnegan v. Armour

2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 244

• Court: Cuyahoga Circuit Court
• Decided: July 1, 1888
• Status: Published

Opinion

Armour et al. sued Donnegan et al. for goods sent them to sell on commission, and procured an attachment which was executed, and remained undissolved iirdicrh?rg'’d.

Hessenmueller & Gallup, for plaintiff in error. Henderson, Kline & Tolies, for defendant in error.

Donnegan et al. as a second defense, sought to recover for said attachment as a wrongful attachment, in the same suit, and

Third — For the same attachment as a malicious prosecution.

Held: 1. As to the third defense, that it was insufficient, not setting forth the termination of the attachment.

2. Again, it was not a proper counter-claim or set-off. As to the second defense.

3. Held: First, not a counter-claim, as not connected with the subject ol the action.

4. Second, it was no proper set-off, as not in existence at the beginning dfffhe suit.