Flegenheimer v. Dreyer
Opinion of the Court
The defendant interposed an answer ■to the petition in this proceeding, setting up a general denial and a -counterclaim under the title of a second defense. The counterclaim alleged that after the making of the lease “it was agreed by and between the plaintiff and this defendant that the defendant surrender .to the plaintiff herein the said premises, and that the plaintiff would -accept such surrender, and pay to the defendant Gustav Dreyer the sum of five hundred ($500.00) dollars for the surrender of the said •leasehold.” It further alleged that by reason of the failure of the plaintiff to carry out said agreement the defendant had suffered damage in the sum of $500. At the beginning of the trial counsel for the -plaintiff moved to dismiss the counterclaim, and in deciding the motion the municipal court judge said: “I will strike it out; I strike -out the second defense.” As I understand it, this ruling was equivalent to a decision that the counterclaim was insufficient in law; and ■in this view the court was right. It would have been error to hold .that a counterclaim cannot be interposed in a summary proceeding
Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs. All concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.