Donnegan v. Armour

2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 244

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.