Greathouse v. Greathouse

Texas Supreme Court

Greathouse v. Greathouse

60 Tex. 597, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 9

CourtTexas Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 25, 1884

DocketCase No. 4664

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 60 Tex. 597 (Greathouse v. Greathouse) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Greathouse v. Greathouse, 60 Tex. 597, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 9 (Tex. 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Walker, P. J. Com. App.

Article 645, E. S., provides that “ whenever any suit shall be brought for the recovery of any debt due by judgment, bond, bill or otherwise, the defendant shall be permitted to plead therein any counterclaim which he may have against the plaintiff-, subject to such limitations as maybe prescribed by law.” Under an analogous provision in the statutes existing previous to the revision (art. 3443, Pasch. Dig.), it was held that the set-offs or counterclaims contemplated by the law must be mutual and due in the same right; that a joint debt cannot be set off against a separate demand, nor a separate debt against a joint one; and that this rule applies to partnership debts. See Allbright v. Aldrich, 2 Tex., 166; Hamilton v. Van Hook, 26 Tex., 302; Henderson v. Gilliam, 12 Tex., 71; Goode v. McCartney, 10 Tex., 194.

But it cannot be maintained that the defendant’s counterclaim setting up a balance due him on a pre-existing partnership with the plaintiff falls within the spirit or meaning of the rule above deduced from the decisions. In those, and in similar cases, elsewhere to be found, it is to be noticed that in all the joint claims or partnership claims which have been determined to be unavailable as defenses in set-off, there was one or more additional obligors jointly bound or liable with the plaintiff on the counterclaim thus set up as a defense.

But where, as in this case, the plaintiff, whom the defendant alleges was his partner and indebted to him as stated in the answer, is shown to have been the only partner with the defendant in the business in which they were concerned, the debt thus claimed as a counterclaim cannot properly be deemed a joint demand of any two or more persons against the plaintiff. It is the separate, independent claim of the defendant against the plaintiff, and it constitutes no objection against asserting it as a counterclaim that it is an alleged balance due on partnership transactions.

For the error in striking out the answer, we conclude that the judgment ought to be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

[Opinion adopted January 25, 1884.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Walker, P. J. Com. App.

Article 645, E. S., provides that “ whenever any suit shall be brought for the recovery of any debt due by judgment, bond, bill or otherwise, the defendant shall be permitted to plead therein any counterclaim which he may have against the plaintiff-, subject to such limitations as maybe prescribed by law.” Under an analogous provision in the statutes existing previous to the revision (art. 3443, Pasch. Dig.), it was held that the set-offs or counterclaims contemplated by the law must be mutual and due in the same right; that a joint debt cannot be set off against a separate demand, nor a separate debt against a joint one; and that this rule applies to partnership debts. See Allbright v. Aldrich, 2 Tex., 166; Hamilton v. Van Hook, 26 Tex., 302; Henderson v. Gilliam, 12 Tex., 71; Goode v. McCartney, 10 Tex., 194.

But it cannot be maintained that the defendant’s counterclaim setting up a balance due him on a pre-existing partnership with the plaintiff falls within the spirit or meaning of the rule above deduced from the decisions. In those, and in similar cases, elsewhere to be found, it is to be noticed that in all the joint claims or partnership claims which have been determined to be unavailable as defenses in set-off, there was one or more additional obligors jointly bound or liable with the plaintiff on the counterclaim thus set up as a defense.

But where, as in this case, the plaintiff, whom the defendant alleges was his partner and indebted to him as stated in the answer, is shown to have been the only partner with the defendant in the business in which they were concerned, the debt thus claimed as a counterclaim cannot properly be deemed a joint demand of any two or more persons against the plaintiff. It is the separate, independent claim of the defendant against the plaintiff, and it constitutes no objection against asserting it as a counterclaim that it is an alleged balance due on partnership transactions.

For the error in striking out the answer, we conclude that the judgment ought to be reversed and the cause remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

[Opinion adopted January 25, 1884.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Tex. 597, 1884 Tex. LEXIS 9, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greathouse-v-greathouse-tex-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack