Skydell v. Wedding

Michigan Court of Appeals

Skydell v. Wedding

164 N.W.2d 763, 13 Mich. App. 678, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1139

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 23, 1968

DocketDocket No. 3,374

StatusPublished

This text of 164 N.W.2d 763 (Skydell v. Wedding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Skydell v. Wedding, 164 N.W.2d 763, 13 Mich. App. 678, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1139 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

J. H. Gillis, J.

This was an action upon a New York judgment. Plaintiff in this case, likewise the plaintiff in New York, is the assignee of certain support payments owing from defendant to his former wife, the latter being a California resident. Although defendant appeared and participated in the New York proceedings, he raises, for the first time in Michigan, allegations by way of counterclaim against his former wife. He asserts that he was poisoned with arsenic by his former wife and has sustained damages therefrom.

The former wife is not a party to these proceedings and nowhere does any basis of jurisdiction over her person appear from this record. It was properly determined by the trial judge that assertion of the counterclaim is by way of recoupment or set-off rather than by way of defense to the action on the judgment. Under the circumstances, it appears to be a novel claim asserted against one who was not a party to the main action, but whose presence would be indispensable. GCR 1963, 205, 207.

Denial of the counterclaim was, therefore, proper and without prejudice to otherwise plead the claims. There was no error.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.

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

J. H. Gillis, J.

This was an action upon a New York judgment. Plaintiff in this case, likewise the plaintiff in New York, is the assignee of certain support payments owing from defendant to his former wife, the latter being a California resident. Although defendant appeared and participated in the New York proceedings, he raises, for the first time in Michigan, allegations by way of counterclaim against his former wife. He asserts that he was poisoned with arsenic by his former wife and has sustained damages therefrom.

The former wife is not a party to these proceedings and nowhere does any basis of jurisdiction over her person appear from this record. It was properly determined by the trial judge that assertion of the counterclaim is by way of recoupment or set-off rather than by way of defense to the action on the judgment. Under the circumstances, it appears to be a novel claim asserted against one who was not a party to the main action, but whose presence would be indispensable. GCR 1963, 205, 207.

Denial of the counterclaim was, therefore, proper and without prejudice to otherwise plead the claims. There was no error.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Fitzgerald, P. J., and McGregor, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 N.W.2d 763, 13 Mich. App. 678, 1968 Mich. App. LEXIS 1139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skydell-v-wedding-michctapp-1968.