University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Counterclaim and cross-complaint under the codes and advantages of consolidating the two

(USC Thesis Other)

Counterclaim and cross-complaint under the codes and advantages of consolidating the two

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content w SC O L O LAW. S, . CL.· II .t-.1 _ ·-L.t·. I .1' I 1 1 LR . 'I-DJ COJJ,rjS - •· I~ D I ·n I f ' ... t: 1 II G 11: • • ro ... .L • 1: . ,u La.-J 1 T e ic re s e· ted to te De t of J uris rudenc e In p rtia l 1.l f "l l .. :er:t o· t e e uire ~ ts o~ t e u :c .... - 10 , 1 5 6 ~ I COI TEI TS Chanter l?age I. Ori2in of Countercla im. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 • • II. III. IV. v. I. II. - I I I . Interpretation of the Co ntercl in St -· t t es. • • In eneral. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • As to p rties. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . d.S to ' b,iect r~ .. a tt e r . • • • • • • • • • • • Interpret ti on of t he Cou_ntercl (., i m St tutes . c ~1ifornia . in • • • In ee __,r(l. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • - s to ..=-arties . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • As to ~11bje c t - tter. . .. • • • • • • • • • • • I J stice o .rts. • • • • • • • • • • • • • Ori i n of t e C ---os...., -c or.1 Jl a · t. • • • • • • • • • Use of t e C " O s-c o_-ol int · 10 r r ,lly . • • • • • Use 0 t e Cros . - co .. . l .. ,i t ncl I t e _._' ret t i on 0 t e Cro 0 - co, t t . ll te in C liforr . a . • I n ener 1. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • , t o ies . .... ~u , r • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • f to ,..., ., • .I... tter . J; 0 U0 1 Je CL . • • • • • • • • • • • • .L 1n L, in as rce ou.rt . • • • • • on of J ornterc 1 r:. i ..1 ~ nc - c c _, l ,in • . o · ~on oli a in . • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 5 • • • • 5 • • • • 6 • • • • 9 • • • .15 • • • • 15 • • • 16 • • • .l~ • • • 25 • • • 2i • • • . 29 • • • 31 • • • •)l • • • 31 • • • . 33 • • • . 3 • • • . }~ 0 • • • lf2 IUTRODU CT IOI~ The Courts of the St~te of C~lifornia, an of every code jurisdiction, have, in the due course of their adjudic tin of the cases before them, written opinion after opinion with the end in view of c ircu.ri scribing the limits , ,.,hich the le islatures of their various jurisdictions meant to place on the code remedy of counterclaim. These opinions naturally vary according to the ~,ordin . of the .,articular statute of ii the jurisdiction providin for this remedy, but, as r c •ic lly all of the codes are alike in tle subst nee o · t eir r o isions for this re c e rjy, the results ir: the vari s jurisdicti s re similar. The rem e y of cros -compl int has ~lso c: u e _ t1 Courts a good deal of t ~ouble, and the authorities on this subj ect show that the uestion of .I. en a cros -co l ~int is ~ro er, has c -used even the most eminent j urist s o · t e comtr ore tl .n a pas~ ina thought. In their effect and ~roce d1re, t ese t ~o re e ~ies are much the s a~e, thou·h it is clear th t C Ul1 e r C l ·' i i S a pa.rt of the answer, vhile a cros -c om l ' int i u ivers lly held to be a separate ~ le din · t o ·~ i ch n c s {er is re o ired. But both, in all t eir bases, re i n tte nat1re of set-offs or recoun nt s a i st action. £hey both admit .J f a· · ·'ir tive r l ief, nd re both a _ _ eans of a.ff irn ti ve de ense, or of c t i do~n' e cl im oft e laintif as set fort. in the cm l ' it. • • • 111 For the re sons of t1eir sirrilarity, and for the additional reason th ,t there se n1s to be no re 1 reason ,,hy the t 1 .: o r e ~edies should not both e incl ded under one n e, and the proce lure under both r a de t e s a .e, they re t a~en up to ether he re N i th vie.y, of champ i oning a c use for the consolid ~inn of he two. It ~ill therefore, be t he r . ose of this treatise to sho · the develop ent of e ch, the ·:or i11 s of e .cl in ener~l, a1d es Deci lly t he use and effect of both in C lifornia. C · IG i l 1 Counterc l c,,.i m is purely a code ere t re . o ever history ive s us a reason for it , ~ hich lies in the dev lo ent of the co .. on la - doctrine of "Re coupment" , -nd int e e a itable doctrine of rr s e t - off" , ~. , ich 1 t ter w the co on lavJ by 1.~ e ... ns o st t 1te d 1 i 3 II • finally adopte d into t : e r in of G e orge "Re cou m ent" is ~or o ~ re c o r i · n and .1e · s st r i c t 1 y " cu.ttin bacJr" • I luv; it . cien t t 1S c:18 e w i tc- elf , and co ~ res 1 o d i t e n ... ec o V ti n" 0 civil la~ . I t • t COOL on 1 V, ' t i r t 0 defe da t , i n the e J. S ' e So. ...... acti on, to cl, ..1,i 0 ...... . .L.if eit· er bec ..... use e L, e l ' h s not co .~ 1 ie d J . v i t 0 0 . e s 0 li · tion 0 - le contrac t on v11 i ch e S1108 , r ec ., ., r e c~s o .. e duty w ich the i o ated l av, i m pose d upon bin i e . in or er -or .. nc e of t at L~ c on t r act • It 1 d its i ce 1-ti o int e 1 decision , co 1rts develo nin- fr o , th e l lo . t. of judicial ce of 1artial de f J11ses an d re .. ct i o: o · 1 d u.r iD. e , to t e 11 o 1 c e of c r s s - deffands i n f vor of tl e de e d 1 t ·or d - e s re u lti10- from 1 Q I annerot V ~ .-C l ure , 3 010 . L~ 2 •olsom vs C · rl i, . . 1 u.1nn • ~ 20 3 St . 2 Geo . I I , C • 2 4- 6 olsom VS Carli , • n . 0 .. l the acts or oois oions of the 1 \ inti - , ich - 1 ted to a bre ~ch of the co1tr· ct sued upon. ecou ent t con on law, was solely a atter of defe se, nd co ld do no ore th r n 5 defeat rec very. !o af ·ir. tive r lief co · ld be iven. Set-off was l on use a in e riuity before it s doted into the com~on l a~ by st tute, on the t eory t t to llow a :pro . · er set-off 1as to do v1 y i th multiplicit 1 of uits, settling in one ac ion ~hat would other vise consume infinitely more tir1e nd ener y i f tried iece : e 1 as \Va s the procedure in similar c ~ses at co on 1 ,. able to conceive o · yo~ o er t ut the common law, not being t e ~l irtiff, bin n actor in a suit, co d ot c p~e , d t ide o set-off, wh ich was, in e r -ect, the set i - up of n i ependent contract in 01position tot ~t set up b the 1 i ·ff , forte ur o e of avoiding the ·o r ._,.er. ~he doctrine of set-off, too, se 1 ~s o lav e een borrowed froJ the civil la , h ~ving its indeption i the ide of "Com ensa.t i on" allowed by tl e civil law . vent ally, the sort- comings of the co .1mon l ' W se m to ve een re· lized in this 2 matter, and once a 6 in, the c ommon l aw donted an e r uity pr ·nciple by a st tute r as ed d ri! 7 t e rei ~n of ~ear e II. is st tute alloi,ved mutu 1 debts to be set of a · inst e · c o - er in the same suit, · nd, Jhile its sc e se . s to ve bee slirhtly extended by later statutes, it rer;1 :- ined essenti·-lly the same down to the adoption of the codes ·nd the iies pre ~ d arnal am- 5 Pomeroy•a Code Remedies, }rd ed., P. 791 ation of la 6 nd e q ity . These theories of recoup ent ~nd set-off , as developed by the .11nglish l a , ado ,ited by th • state. of con on 1 ere V Tl 0 11S ' the United States , and , even at the present tine, in 0 e of our jurisdictions, t ere are se a r te ro·i oi ns for the re edy of set-off, in the statutes . Set-off rose fro J a differ nt contr ct -4- n that sued l, U:.)On; reco u rri nt s eces 0 rily of d ; a 6 eo re ul in~ fro breach of the contract sue c upon. I n set-off, a alance .i-ht be recovered fro the l ai tiff ; af -'ir .1· tive re 1 ief VJ s never a110,1 ed in recoupment. ecou ent as solely a defe se ; set-off VJas re l ly an f ··irri tive cause of action. Thus it can be seen , th ~t vhile the two\ ere both c oss-cl i ns, t ey ~ere es ue tially different in , eir nature, an in - e relief llo ed. Each seems to hrve ~r adu· lly dev l oped i s one , until now, s incor orated in tl e codes, t l eir scope is enl· red so tl t the co1mterclaim, . ., "'ich acl j i~·te l ly t ':es their l ccj ce, is, by its vvo 1·din~, plainly jieant to cover many . ore si .L.u· ti ons t h· n both 7 of them covered int e old l ~w . Section ~30 of the Code o Civil Proced- re of the t ate of C lifornia . is a typic ~ ~odern em od i ent o · these princi als of recoupment und set-off, wi ha wide r scone than the ever h d . It reads as allows: 6 7 "The countercl · im---- ust e ne existi inf' ~ r of def ...,ndc. t ar d a j,inst a plaintiff between 1. /' om a several judgment i ht be had in the action, and a isi out of St . 2 Ge o . I I , ch • 2 Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, 3rd ed., P. 797 3 one of th follo. i n causes o · acti n: {l) a C a se of action arisin out o~ the tr s cti n set forth in the compl ~ int as t e fond tion of the pl intiff 1 s cl im, or co nected ,itb the subject of the ction; {2) In an action upon c Jntr ct; any ot er c e of ction ari ing also upon cortract c exist i r a t t e co ence , nt of the aotionn. The old "Recou ment" is incor r · ted i ·1 t e first s bdivi s ion of the section, 1 hile the old idea of "Set-of n is t _e subject of the second u divi sion. ut ffi rrat i ve r elief is llowed in both cases, d the old rec ou r~rnent term "c o tractn is broadened by the s bsti ution therefore of t1e ter s "Tran actionn and "Subject of t t e ct i onrr . It is the ·irst s ec t ion o · t ., lese st · 0ute ~ , a t se m to cause the ~ourts t he os e ili · ras s ent i n t he i nter cret r tion of the :ph r c1 s es n · r i O i - o t o · t e t r· s · c i n ' .' ; "F o unda t ion of nlaintiff ' s cl a i m" ; and "Co nee ved • Ji t t e s · ect of the action". T ... e sec ond section se .J . s n t to be s o com lie ted in the eyes o t e o rts. Pomeroy's Code Hemedies, ;rd ed., P. 797 5 ~ APTE II OF 1. I I L The ess nti -1 fe tur 0 of a countercl in e m to be : (1) I t must be a c~use o ' ct ion; (2) he c -use of ction th s alleged ust exist inf vor 0 t e defend' nt v pleads it; ( 3 ) The of a c ion u t ex· st a, a.inst t pl int i f · . the cause e i n suit, so that a j udgm ent for the 1 · e · de ~ de C n be rendered aga i 1st him· ( 4-) rt ust (a) arise out 0 co tract , • e. ere 1. w ' the • inal action . 0 ori 1S C ntr ,Lct, or ( b) out of t or be connected VJi th the sar. c o.use of C ion statec by the plaintiff in his co pl int. I f a contract is set fort int e co pl int as the f ound ation of plaintiff's de, nd, t e countercl i m ~ust arise out of t hat same contr ' ct; i I a "tr· s ct i on" i s set forth as the foundation of . i i:- intif f ' s de . 1 .nd , t e co ntercl i ust arise out of that ntr nsaction"; or a n~ countercl im may be pleaded 10 " V Vhich is uonne cted with the subject of t e action' • As an essenti i·l.l fe ture or element of ever counterclaim, the c . 1se f ct ion tJ icl it set c • up ust be f ch a nature that the relief obt i ned b its ;eans N ill neces arily interfere with , defe at, le s sen, or r.~odify th relief grunted to the ~l ai tiff i n virtue oft e c use of action 1 e -ed i his 11 compl aint • Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, 3rd ed., P. 899 10 Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, ;rd ed., P. 803 11 Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, 3rd ed •• P. 605 6 The co1mterc l im , i n mo t jurisdicti ns , is not li i t ed to le· 1 r el ief , but c n , under tl e 1st i vis i on of tl e uection, n e it le nat ure sue as .u ·et title . The i mulied restri c ion upon the use o c 1te~c1 ims a -nl ie s Je re o e or both oft cross - de i nds ~re e quitab l e and N e r e a rec overy on the co ntercl ~im :old not tend to defe t, mod i fy , 1 u lify , or inte rfere ith the relief s~e y the pl· intif Univers l ly , but rticul rly i t e st~t e s · ere a r e l y i r e r. i red to a c st i n so e t expr eso ', d defi·1 _ ·te n· --ner , i ic , :.i.te 1 is desi n of tre ~ ti ad r elying upon tis ~rtic a r orvio .. 0 co1nt e r c l a im . I t ~ st e o distin- isied is , swe r s a t_ e for.a l • 1 - n ua e e plo. e d , n · ze i t at once as v t " e pl i_ ~ i co ntercl r- i , ~ d t he Co1 rt : · recog- 13 d not as a si le defe s e • • he defc:.d·, t c nno et up n i .1- • nt (.A.in ' s - v l id co ter- cl im a eve .L u ~ v ere . e cl s c l e ~ - 1 el ~ i 1s betveen h i m- self s ,4.. o 1.., .. r pe r ._, on ; f vor of the defe d n · _ o u o t e d ... tr e d . , ~ ., d r 1 l e d i t • t bee is i g in Te t est se L S to i_ d ,•el d nt ct ion I , de · t t e , sis o~ sutt. ' : or ex, r. nle, no 1 r t r ' ue 1.. o c. claim se n r a t e 1- st i r,1 a s i11 i vid 1 , c -~ et p a nart1 ers ip cl · i te cla i • 1 Pomeroy's Code Reme dies, 3rd ed., P. 809 1 Pom eroy•e Code ~ecedies, ;rd ed., P. 811 a A f rtl er . ci. ~ le . t c.J, t the tercl c. i t be a prl l u dem cJ.nd a ainst t pl . tif - • The te t ere . ' /ould the l lS: f r'cts if al l e ~ed . r ..... te cti on .lins t t 1 intif 1. s e e ' a_-e ut a C c..,ll e of -ction a . t 1 im. a 1.n ' nd 0 J him liable to the a~1ro rite relief?' or i st· ce, cla i n .·ai st pl~intiff's as Li ·nor is not p operly cl im, and no af -ir . tive r olie c · su j ct o counter- e obt i ed on it i f so ple ded, tho "h - t ject .£ tter is ecte l.t with re u 0 t the sub·ect 0 pl - i t if 'S C OL 'l. l ui -'- · n a i s · )art of tl e L, ' tr nsacti n "'0 t orth t erein, t e c l i y be use 1 s a 15 recou: , nt a ~a1- t t - e as 0 i 1 ee • It i s an e J e i 1 e e nt i r t 1 1 otion of a c om1tercl ' i rn th 'j, t it n u.st be c us e f ction; t1 a is must c o sist of ,. J.. • ... • .·.' t iv e re 1 i e f , and not be ~ ,atte r si 1ply defe i ve, e it _ er 1- · a r of nl a i tiff ' s l t recovery, or i 1 .. red 1 ct io o - t e r:. o t o pl int if ·, s cl im. The de and cou te - cl ~i e ust e one b defe ant in the c in the c - b one ue r i r h ic 1 e i s ed c nd s t t e Jl i ti ·f in ic e ues . § Or exa . le, counterclaim s an individuLl , iff suing as an indi~i u 1, a s trusteJ , or ' g •i1st a pl it- 16 truste , c 11ot be : int ined 14- 811.J- Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, 3rd ed., P. 15 8'15 Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, 3rd ed.• P. 16 - ar:ris vs a lor , 53 LJOhn . 500 7 • The co tercl i must exist •inf vor o defe d nt , and a · inst a l aintif· bet sw' een 1hor. a sever u-1 j d ment nihtbeh·dinthe ctin'. ' /here , ho ,ever,the li"'"'"ffs of defe n d ncs are joint, t l is ts not pos 0 ible , ~ ere se e. s to be consider ble co ict a to v en a j d . e 4 ~i l l be joint , b u t is a u ·ivers 11 rec o n i zed rule t l ~t ·! e t e den c-nd in suit i i i •, in "'"' ' severc .:l.· ce i Po 1. e ro, Sll .g e sts t lo .. 1 in rule s as tests: ( 1) /lhen the defend 3.nts are joint co tractors, nd a re sued s s c , no counter'cl i c n be .; a de il ' le l1_.c c o sits of de L_.,nd i n f c vor o one o s e o . + u ... e ; defe r d- cnts are j ointl ' d c untercl _ i n , co s · t · of de .1 i.r: f ·· or o· e or s ; e of t e . , 1 i ot· r · e 1it ., to ~ection , be i ter - ' se -; ( 3) C e J. t1ore ev e r · ll li le , l 0 r t '. j oi ly , i s - e :c - _ ~ is (< i , le· ( L/_) ' I1 all e c1 ituble it ·!1erein ns ., . ··-·erent ' er ·· a i r te - ~ est u r e e c s co - .d ,_ .J... l . e e J. lJ t C L l .- e:x · C"t i - f;1' in f vor 0 0 e 0 ore e i 1 te r ~ ose d ; ( 5 ) en . . .J... ri r- t of i on, - i te l ' i t- ers ns ~ -ve a J 1 lJ C ~ u· s c.., if s , U ) U.n e - cl ~ · C 10t e t i 1.J te e, . .J.. 0 or e ~ .. ;, l v e 0 of .J... . f ·· vo r 0 1 or of v, d ,., ts · ( ) --l a i t- lJ e n1 l n e ' iffs selter 1 . --ts of ,ct i o o ;ierl 1m i te d r1; ' a s • l · i ui . . s ' tely d i te 1 . ect t o r e se n r .. OUl er- cl · i Js ; ( 7) '/r ere r: l . . . int . f l r 1 l J l r • u and there is a isjo i 1der , ~ con· e cl· i against all of those _ ro nerly joined; nc ( ) In e ouitable actions, a c untercl im, inf vor o · ne or s 01 e of the defend· nt s , and a i st ne or ~ e oft e l aint i f s, is permis ible as - e ne r ; 1 rl 1 e , be c l Jes not generally reco nize t e co .. on 1 d ctri e of joirt rie t and liability, and se a r t e j ud ments bet ?een arties are lmost a r natter o c ourse. : 1 1 ese r les bet ,een the p rties, as lai.d dov1n by on1eroy, se e ·. to i n .... ude r -c ic ally every conceiv - .,ble case, and c all tte ti matter of _ _ arties, J i ch se 17 is 0or ew n ti v ve d • to i n le one, In an eouit ble c t ion, a c ~untercl i . consisting of an e quitable cause of ction, relief, ray be interpose c i f it de n _.ndi c e :~ it · .Ille ~os e s ies all o~ t e ot er _., el r m cnts re uired byte definition , ~d ~ y , i ny, if not all cases, be l e aded b, one o re o· t e defe r d nts less th ~n all, a a i nst one or . ore oft e pl a i ti · s. ven in a le 1 a ction, co u t ercl· i n1 rnc be set u c. d f ·irm- ative relief be r a1ted .... , . t .' . e un s • ~ ·/hat is the L1e nine: of tl e t er "tr s a c t i o n s 1 s e in th e first s 1bdivision o · e c o e ection. o e oy se iS to 17 Pomeroy•s Code Remedies, }rd ed., P. 820 9 think that: " Tr ns ct ion" i...., " Th t co . in <.. tion o cts nd vents , circ , t ces nd de ult , rl icl , viev.ed in one as_ect, results i i if ' o c t ion, nd vie ed i n a ot er .ect , re i de d · t ' v ri 0 ht of ction" . It i s , b, n1a j o · t y i 1 t e r et · t i on , n 11c _ 1 bro de r th n the term no ntract". e . ere ct th t th codes , in most i · ·sta ces , sa " ri i1 denotes t } -a t t· e in-'-ent aco ·,e + , a u l it , ' ( ld - - Ii ?" -- l ...., 1 been u e • o t o ti- co tr '" ct or tr· 1 s -ct i on" - ( i S C i o ro ' der in oee l .L.. e terr " lo e 10 The te 11 ~~ , i o c o LJ e a ction" ~ t e c i t .., (;ode s , as 0 1s oc u le . - t, it s ;~-s .;_ore ,c- I • ., . ~ G : •. ore 1 _ _ ony ·t +h 1 ' 1 V of t r. e t t~ e , to re --! r t e '' 1 bjec of t, - i -- i c i 1:: 1 r i -~ r t to enf o r ee or · t c i - ic ..L. ' u c t io 11an t o re a,rd ~- v d n i _ .. a. j or i t of ju i die · i I C L. e e ied on, • v,. -'- e p e t · t . ., J r a 1...1 e .L.. LI i ~.:. olved , it , e i . -.. _.e c i te i e ct . r e Ind i n '-' o rt Pomeroy•s Code R ema , ies, 3rd ed., P. 629 i t sot e u been ll t t 1 at ' the connec t ion us · be 01ch t t e p rtie oul d be u 0uosed t o vc · rese en nd u ntem, l ' ted it i 1 t eir ' mu tu - ... 1 acts , i • e • t 1 . e . r t i e s 1. st , ' v 1- d t i s c o e c t i on and it 8 C O 11 Se rv e 11c e S i V - · e •~ 1 ... e t e · de lt , i t h e~ch ot er, 1 t o f uV O r t i s View • In re q-ard t o the n r ase" r i s i n out o contr ct set I 11 forth i n pla int ·ff' s coo 1 it as t he found t i on of .1 i t i f f 1 s cl c... imn , und u 1bte :1y t r e codifiers d t e l e .,isl u es , i n drc '1 in an d adoptin th t rt of t he f ir t o U b i v i s i on of t h e sec t ion, ad i n mind t e doctrine of rec _ent, n d so fraL e a. the l ane: ua e t -. t i t h Olll d i nc l ude c· se of rec o .~ ent, and a l others , le · 1 ~ c e ~ e ' a l o o s t o it , i.e. all cases i n 1 ich t 1 e ri t o a ct i on of tl...,, 1, i .L i f ~· nd that of t he de f en d -- nts ar i e f r o ,l t e . e co tr ct. Pom eroy divides c · se s i hich t e c· u e of ac t i on alleged a s a cou.ntercl a.i t he co . _ l aint a s t ri as out O. t he " Tr ans Cvion vet f ort i n 1:O 1111da~ i on f l o~ i t i ff ' cl i m " into t hree clas ses: (1) Le 1 c ions i n : ic both p rt ies de; r n d a money j ud g· :·. en t ; ( 2 ) C • s e s i - v,; i c, t l e j u d (" 1.· en t i s ot her t han f or . one r, and (3 ) C se s i 1 ~·1 ic n 1 i 1 tif + ' c u.,1s e of action, or defend n · , L countercl i rn , or b ot l , are e I i tab l e i n t heir nature. e f urthe divide ~ t he f irs t div i s i on 19 Pomeroyrs Code Remedies, 3rd e~., P. 847 into: (1) Cases ~here l a i 1 t "ff ' c , e of action nd defend- ant' s count ercl · i re i fo J for debt or dam' e s upon cont r ct express or i li;)lied; (2 ) here pl i tiff 1 s c u~e of a ction is u on contract , an d defe d~nt 1 s c o1mtercl i m i for d - L a ~~e s a r is in '. out of to rt ; ( 3 ) · e r e p 1 i 1 t if :i.· ' c '-t s e of c t i o1 is for t ort , e t ' s c ntercl i i i n forn1 u pon cont r ct; (4- ) f' ere t e deri 'nd ...., o · bot 0 rtie re for d · ,~ ages arisin fr o J . tort • out, to e ucl o tt ese seer· 1 1 i n t · e - u1es e r e in se t e s , it i s r ea dily saen tha t t e. c · ~ , 1n o t e s ~ ,, i d u o e , or not to be , ' s c l · s s e s , 12 t e ra r er s bject of c t e cl ·rs . · s to ~·} et er count er- c l · -.i m . Jill be ro ... e in n 2,· i en c ' se , se .;r s a u est i o1J of f a ct. rely t 0 be o 1 eve r it is , id , ' I d cor ec 1~ I believe , that ~henever t 1 e f cts re 1c t ~t n ele c io is iven t , the :pl i tiff t o e in or .. e · t · e or t rt or o co t r ct, nd i , e s e on c o· tr :- 1.ct , defe d t . a c ol t erc l i m for t1 e bre · ~c o t l t u o tract , t h e S c ,1 e co nt er- c l · im. lo,o be i 1ter "0 0 e 1 }· e 1 t" e , u i t is in · --or fo r t e tort; t e f ct being tl e s · 1 r:~e i both ases o r , the a c t i on , t he c ountercl i .~.'o ,,:ld clearl ari e o 1t of the re d, l t r u s a c i n · · ich th f ound tin of plai t iff ' s den nd. '' 1 he ter _ "trc , c. .. ction" re f ers to t "_ e ctua l f cts 20 Pomeroy's Code Remedies, 3rd ed., P. ~56 and circt stances fro n ~hich he ri hts re lll t nd ich re averred, d not to th t'le re for · n m nner i n J ich these 21 facts are averred • As to when a C c.,U.Se of ac ion be t ·iciently "C on ecte . vit the sub·ect of t1e action" to bet e pe oper subje c t of co untercla im , t e ourts seen to be ir. accord that tl e co 1 ection . ust be i r e , i te nd direct . 1 7hat is 13 "immedi t e d direct" is n t er of f ct in e· .ch particular c ase. . s to h t is the " ubject of' the ction" has been dtisc1 sse i a for _er r .,I.. rah L • The subject 1 J 1 atter llowed as c untercl i ~ under the second subdivi ion of tle code section , c n e dismissed v ith a f ew words . It is ap arently the rule tat , i f plaint iff ' s c use of c ion arises o cont r ct , any counterclai m, lega l or e cuit ' le also i s i on contrcJ.ct , is o.di.issible , p r ovide d t e p rty rul e 'nd t e ener -1 rule , eretofore st · -·.t e c 1 . , that tl e relief r t e ( to the defe d" t shall in so _ e manner inter ere \'it , lessen, or oc1i ·J , if no t de s t roy , th ~ t other ,J i e o t· i e el b t e pl aintiff , are comnl ie d ith . I t i s a unive r s · 1 rule , t ~t Le c~ se of action const i tutin tr.e c untercl ~i ~ must be exi tin at the co · ence :ent of the ac t i on , but in an ac ion on contr, ct to reco,e r debt or unliqliidate d da , es , defend nt r aJ countercl· im debt 21 Pomeroy•s Coda Remedies, 3rd ed., P. 656 or d a es ri in on ot, er co trJct , w etler uch d· a es re unliquid ted or nert in , ti latter ein den rture ... fro the ol ule o · et-o , ere t be r ou.nt d to be certaih . to the nece u~it o e i up the rule, t -ti t e be ce o - t tutor co L tercl ·.im , it is rovi ion , the ction def e1 dant elec ~ to et up is C' se o counterclaim , or e _u . l old · t nc ro oecute it in a 2 se - ar te c t ion brou h t fort - t ur os e • ith t e e- cr .... l a r.L s s to t • t erpret tion e re e l t he tercl • stu . t} V . juri diet i o s in co l. e l ri u of en .J r a l , let u t 1 r to our or_ , .. jurisdiction ( C ·-- 1 if orni ) t and . t ol . s of 011r o ··n 1 o, rt 0 it . vie 7 e l 22 Pom eroy •s Code Rem edies , 3rd e d., P. 671 C III 1 . I L C Ol tercl · ir. i s t t -rt of t e def end~ .. nt :ple d • • st a C .. e 0 C l l af .. ir. -ative r ,lief , or 0 et 1 It • in lS no se se def b u . 0 ly se, l 2L~ ative relief , nd , even t 0 pl intiff ' the defe nda11t " - ve j ud en 0 l 0 hovvever, t ie 1 . tif - . 1, t 18 l l ,._ ucce s u de 1 d· nt • lSe of set i re · . llcin l s 2 p · inti 's recover • '..t.'o be u ., one- .L L- s cl • t c l 2- im r s 1 d L., 0 clefe 1m , e e 7 iff ' s rec overy if e ~hould su ceed • To be v ~il ble s co tercla i . , at t e ti e ..L. e 1ai .J_ • • · C vlOl'. l 15 • ich t e 1 er in ~, .A.. v .. e 1 intiff , for 2 .? inti f ' I- re 0 ery • r nde for ·irm- cl - i • defe ate d , l"' 25 t re l e,., i • If , terc l . of C L' u. l i t e a 0 t of ~ect (,I 0 C OU ter - t or reduce :pl . t - l e c 1 i . . ust e _ i O t u v the . ment t e com,l r int i filed , t e t - t te o lir.it tioI top~ ru in 23 oberts V v onovan , 70 C 1 . 10 ' 112 21.f- s i n VS -- elvin , 7 C 1 . 2 25 4B D • VS llr ., ren ..L. 1 . t 125 C .1 . VlS el.,. 26 Linds a v s Ste 27 rt , 72 Cul . 54-0 lide vs Kayser , 14.2. al . L/-19 . i st the co ntercl im , o t h· t , even ho the st t te l d run a -inst t he countercl~i J e~ore it ~ s set up in the ns Jer, i f it tie t 1 1 i t ;a · v u.l i d · cl ..;, i . at the 2 enced, i t . 0 111 be a t t u.t tiJje • 1oliiti et f or th e n u1 1 b e - c ou1 te re l L- i s ··, ich . · y be ~le ~de ~ i J n c t i on o ,,- i e t ., y: ( 1) In t "' e ir · lle o-a t i on · , t e tl orn · c r ~ct r c t hose in co p l aint; (2) re se r it el st· te e. de· ch co . lete in it se 1 · ; ( 3) re e ch le d a defense , c f rt er , i l nou e es , it is ust ot ur to inc 1de t he ~em~ ds o 2 11 i o e r \ er • '/ith t ese e v e_er· l r r:· r rs , l et s t urn to . ore s eci ic ex -1 ti on o~ ~ e l a , o f-,liforni interpreting these st -. tutes . 2 . In t h i s (1 i C ion , it · 0 iJell t o r r. t, ber t · t ection f -, ex • 16 ,) of th e Code of Civil ace d e of t ' t - ~ t e 0 Cali or1 ia , ., • bodies t e Lt.., in p r o -1 s 10 o- e clu im in N l C e C ·tl if o rn i ' tJ ..., s do ted in 1 7 fr or: t e Culifornia r ctice . ct , n d be r. ende c'"' . ' .r.e re f o r e , . a s never n se t; ing Perkins v ,le 2 Co · t 1 111:1 e Co., 120 Cal . 28' Clay v Carroll, 67 C 1 . 1 17 changes in ita inter ret tion b the Courts c nnot be 1 id to an .,n d.n1ent of t st, tute, but r athe r to' develop 1 e t of ideas n i t u·-tio s . co1rte~cld i . c n onl~ be ple a d b defe d nt .. i st e ernl j d~. e t n i 'ht e 1 d , t he a _laint i f f , bet ee 7 o: te s t b Jin : 1 Could the de t J ve ~ int · i1 e n i1 d pe dent action a ~1.inst 1 - - i ti -f'f upon t e cl im?n It c, n·Jot be le d pl ir if a · . ir st co- against a co-de er d 1t, nor by pla ·ntiff. It c a not be nlead b 30 nnece s ary p' rt" pl int .. if sued as a de~ ~ d nt • In c. se ~here two or ~ >re l uin •i f ·s ·oin i n ct ion ag ~inst defe d -nt , th v 01ntercl · i n set up all, unl e ss the c io is base o or sever· 1 in the pl, intiffs, and , if t ere re two or ore def e1 d nts joine in n action, t e comtercl i n set up must be in f,vor of all of them, unles 0 t e action is b se d on a joint and sever· 1 liability, or is sever 1 against the 31 def nd ants • It is furt er held t a t a co t ercla i m muc t be inf· vor of t he defe1ddnt nd ag ~i st tle ~1 -in~iff int· es i e right or c ~~1acity in v1hich they , re sued, or re in , in the 32 ori -inal action • hus , in a suit g· inst a ~ ·eceiver, the 30 Roberts v Donov n, 70 c ~1. 1oi , 112 31 Curtis v Sprue et. al.,µ C 1. 59 32 Haglee vs P l r er, 7 Cal. 5~3 Receiver could not s ~ forecl · re of a ort ·a. e iven to him as an individu~l. lor can a c ounte cl i be set u gainst a pl - intiff nd f avor of a defe d t and 33 str · n ~ er totes it, nor in ust be a sev L-ral one • From these holding , it c be se en t h t ' l iforni' fo ~l •~.ws the genera l v e i ht of ut~ ori ty in its ru.les s to the rties \ ho ' maFe, or be su ject to, counter- cl · i ms, and t } e el tion t1 e rus t ea r toe ·en ot ' er. The countercla i m ,1 ic the def n d nt y le ad may either: (1) Arise out of th e s . e tr~ns ction set fort in the c om 1 int a tle f a nda .L.ion o r l · int·-1.f' c im; or ( 2 ) Be c on e ct e d , i th t 1 -- e su · e c t of the ct ion ; or ( 3 ) In c i ors 01 c ntr ct, be nt. ot1. er cu se of t.,ction arising on contrac t and existin at t e co n. ence ent o 34- the ction • ihe California stat te on ·ts t }e v ord ''Contract" fro _ th e cl use " ri 0 in out of t e sar e (contract or) tr nsaction set forth i tl e c mpl ~int as the foundation of plaint ~ff's claim", and it is not so cle r thi ... t our legislature m e · nt the term "tr· saction" to include n1ore than "c ontract", but t e i - ter reta i ns of the Co rts 1ake it rr ore co re ensive. 33 1ood vs Brush, 72 C 1. 224- 31./- Code of Civil rocedure, section ~3~ • !hat is the r: ea in o t e te r m nTr· sue ti n '? I a c se decided in 1 93 , the ourt s id: "Ever tr s· ction i ore or les con lex , con i ting of various f ct nd cts done by the res ~ective parties , n d it fre 1uently h _ e s t ,t one or ore of tl ese cts ~old , if vie 1 e d bv itself , be such a violation o dut as to ~ive to the other ri ht of ' . action , but the obli ation thus ere te d Jay be o c ounterb 1 need by ot er natters ro Jin out o the sar: e t r ansaction t t no coJ e s tion ou · t to be rnade therefore . lhile t e partie re c rrying their arr anee[1 ent i. to exec: ion , nd utu: 1 ri - ts and oblig tio s accrue b re s n oft f ni1- l O eit er or both oft ~ to co _ 1 .. str·ctly .itl its te 1 · .s , neit er art hould have t e ri ·ht , so lor . as the agre e nt i s i ·orce · :r. i i r ces · exec tion , to recover the d j,a ·e sust _t, i ed b i m fror: ny bre ch of duty byt e _ Ou er , , · t out t - e s c11, e time satisfying n o 1· tion · st imse l · ro .in out of the s e f air . In such c set, e ri g ts of the one a r e so deu ndent upo t rig 1 ts of the ot er , that simple e it, re uir e s t t re pective c · ses of a ~tion in bet l f of each ot, er oul be adjuste d i n a sin"°le uit" . 19 ~nd i n the sa e c se , the Co rt cite s 1it n· oval , Pomeroy ' s def i nition of e t e r 1 " Tr ar s a c t ion ' · s : "That c offbi atio and def - -ults . th e pl aintiff ' as e c t re ~q 1 t o ct s d ev ts , circ ~st ~ ces c vie,1e c i o e s 1;ect re ·ults in ri g t o ction , 11 vie 1 ·. ed in anothe r i t }e defe dant 1 s ri , t o ctionn . 35 So, it has be en eld t tin an action to rec over pro ise d comnensation for t e d -, in of pr·une s , the def end ants i.ay .. counterc l • lffi d ,~t ages s ~t 8.. · e ., by re s n of t 1 e ne 1 · e ce and want of ski l l 0 .J.. tl e plaintiff in t e ~ erf or J • nee of 36 the contra c t , ( ereb t runes i jurec . \ . that e ~ ere ain , 35 36 8t ory e t c . Co . vs tory , l uO C 1 . 30 Thomas Druit Co . v tart , 107 Ca l . 206 an architect, i I ~ u nt _ n e uit ction, can be counter- cl~i ed ae inst for ne li ence in the ~erform nee of his 37 work • But, n t e ot er nd, in an ctioI for cla i m and 3 ro~erty byte cattle, cannot be c untercl i ~ed , the ~ourt uotin fr~m bbott•s lav . dictionary, vol. 2 , "T e ter •tru,n cti n' in 1..,v uute li , iting c o 1 ter- cl is t de ~ nd ari i o t of the s r e tr ns ' ction, intends S m e CO [ ercia l O~ U ine s u e oti tion, ' d 11ot ,1ron 0 f violence or fra11dn. Goin furtner, ho,ever , t e Curt i t e case, s id: nBut it i not nece for sm: to gb t t far in this case. I 1 r. c t io de d o ort t e f :.: cts 1 i ht perha .. s be o c, peculi· r char .-.cter t1 L-t co ter c 1 im or c - o s ~-' - c 11 p 1 · ii t 1 o 1 1 i e o t e the or that the alle e "' tort~ s •tr ns ct ion• Jitl in the m ean in o llhe ode". Ith s ee el t , - t i ' it 00 c iet Litle to 1 nd, da ge s for bre c 1 o tr· ct to dril \Jell on the l · nd t could not be recovered b fJ e .ns of either cross-co .. l :..tint or counterclaim. I an action to fore los treet assess ent • 20 lien, damages fr pilin ~ dirt upo defend~nt's o erty by the contractor, is not with i the ter 1 tr saction 1 set forth 39 i n the code. l\Iany other c ses could be cite - , but they all te d to be rout vhe t eor th t t e 'tr nsact ion 1 ust be a b1°i1ess tr~nsaction, thou: h the le ve a loophole for tort counter- 37 Hart v Bue ele , 16 1 C 1. 160 3i Glide v :a ser, lLJ-2 Cal. l.J-19 39 En eb ~etsen vs Ga, 15 C 1. 27 21 claim, by s t at in 1 0 in erri , t rt' st -te o~ f cts mi ht out c se 1it int e term. to h ve rrived at an 11 rise ~ ere tort s i · t br· h . Califor i ~ do no ~ e inclusive de i ition of the r se "Connecte ith the subject of the action". It s been eld th t, i n n ction by a vendor t o h ve t1 ri _ t of ve dee u der co tr ct for the s le of l end forfeited , t e ven ee is entitle to colnterclQim n indebte ness due i fr o t , ve d r urder , co tr'ct, sub e - ent to tie le contract ·nd bre c , ~ ere v the vendor greed to 1 rclase t e vendee's eauitabl e title in tle l and, t he Co rt sa~in tat t e ~ tter set pint e c ountercla im was suf iciently co ected it t e subject o 4-0 ction • On t e o , er , · d , '"J he re t e h 1 de ~ f 1 ien, sue to rec ove fr .. t 1 olde of 1 i tiffrs rior ..... bse c: ent '· jud ment J ich h s be ~n execute d u on, n re r: ent r1e reby the . l nintiff h d ree , to pay the defe d· nt :pacified SU .. for hiu · ts 1· l 3' t ~re ise s , cannot bes i to be sufficiently co necte 1itt t e s ~ c ~ oft e ction to warrant its bei , set u~ as l_/i) 4-1 countercl im • In still 4-1 Rogers et. 1. v ~ o ten C cili ornia Etc. Co., 159 C 1. 755 Yorb v f •/ard, 109 Cc. l. 1 7 n other c se, it as be J eld t 1- t i an ction of e·ect - ment 1ith d ... defend nt r 1 ~ d c ~use b pl aintiff'~ c 'ttle ru i gt ere - on , i not sufficien ly connecte · vith the bject of the • c...Ction to c.. llo~ co tercl i m to be set up • 2o Jeroy st · t e s i effect , th e only t hin th tis universcll · cce ~te i t th t t 1 e cor1 c t io 11lS r e is d 'rect one . 1he ulti ate question seems to be o e o f act . The secon divi sio o t i s code section doe s not seem to c · use t e tr o ble th t t te ir tone does . I n ctions on contr~ct , any ot e c ~u e of action ari in on c tr ct and exi tin a t .J.. e co .. ~ .. e ee ·· rJ t of t e acti on , y be eountercl i , e d . I t nas be eld t ~ · t the e of non- ne oti ble notes ich , ·,ve b en , ssi; ed by the yee to a tl ird art~ a ... set 0 i st t he1 t e note of .L e p ee , t, v ~ h ich _e has re a s ed before no . ice of t · s . nL ent of e l 4-3 t e notes exec n te c" b h i m • t t , i n a1 c .L ion upon ' prom is aor note, d · n set a · te re 1 . for (. e e llp co l t, an indebtedness U ) 0 n ace unt or nurser tock dest · -ed by p l i tiff's orse e ore t e co ence ent of t he action , ~ ? ich cl im pla i tiffs d 0 reed to def d nt • 42 fi more vs uell, 11,,.. . 1 . 91./- l/-3 St . Louis l atio al V G ' 101 C c. l . 2 6 Lfll- 6!JE Poly Etc . Co . VS 'villi l s f 101 Cal . 22 On the ot er h nd , ple dine w ich erely alle~es n indebte d ess o ' 1 i ti~ to defe d nt 1 s i nors , e., · st - in before the cor..1L enc nt o t : e • ction, nd t · t t e h snot be en id , nd is no , due nd p yable , without the st teLent of ny f r ct a showin t t uch i ndebte 1 ess was mature w 1 en t he ctio a s co !ence :, , is not 1n erql c im nd i c demurrable , nd i n still notl er c~se it l s ee1 , eld t · t items of~ co tercl~im accru ing after t he c o jnenc e Jent of the action c .nnot be 4-5 e given in evidence lso t - t ' • n ct ion upon contr u.ct, • J.. anot, er C use of . C v l.Oil .. pon s r l, te c ontr ct C c.. n only be set up by of c o tercl . ,hen it exist Ci a t the lfl1 4-6 CO f.'l. ence .. 1 nt of t he ct ·on • 1 , ny .ore ex les • fil l l t be iven , but t he only :point that seem s t o ive t he ou_rts any ,;1 rry on th i ..._, subdivision of the section is t e 1 oint of 1 J et "' er or not the cl· .i i which i s sought to be m de t e 0 u j ~ ct oft e co ntercla im, v,a s due t t e c 1 -uenc en_e nt of t "' e c ct i on. These exa .. _ l e ho t ha t t e C lifor i i nterp et ~i on of section 4-3 of t l e ode of Civil Proce dure, s sta· ti · 11 acco ·d Ji th t he 1 1 e i e· t · ut or i t t h~ UG o~t - e c o i n re r d to t he counterc l a im · t 0ute s . l./-5 Provident ~tc . - s 1 n vs D vi s , 1~ C 1. 5J 1.J-6 ¥ood v 0 Brush , 7 C 1. ~ 4 - There re few ore t at tes bedrin up n co tercl ims in C lif rnia, or i t ~ ca, section L/-3 o t e Code o ! Civil Proce cure, ..✓1 i pr ides : "If the ef d t o its to set up countercl i .1 u on c us e nri oin . out o t e tr.scion et art i t e c om~l int as tle ou d .tion o the pl i tiff ' cl im, neith r he nor hiv n ~i ne e c . n fte r 7 .rds int ~in an ction i st tbe ul intif u erefore n. J.:he term 1 tr - s ·,ction ' n · t r~ lly c 1 i ses the s -- r:. e co car in this st t ite sit does i n the i 1ter ret tin of sec t ion L/-3 , t ~t ute e e~ tone ~ no e ti on . b11t other r. ise t Section l.Jl-1-0 t e Code of Civil ~roce J re ~1so be r on t_is subject. I t ro~ides : " '.'hen cross-de .1 • nds e -i te bet,;;een er. 011s under such circur1'st · .~ ces t, i one nad brou , t n ct ion ug inst t e ot er, col l tercl · i cold ve bee set up, t be two de . ds s all be cle ·; r:1 e ~ conrpensate d , so f ar as they e qu 1 e c o er, nei k er c n be de _ r ived on the benefit ere o the i L .ent or de a t h oft e ot er' . Which is erely r, e nt to llo v r ec o _ent rd set-of f ~ ·. ithout L.f i r. at ive relief , r1 ere ' co 2 terclc.c i ~ Jill not L/-7 pro1 erl r lie • . .. s cou .terclai 1~ a rt of t 1 e ns er, and reply is not necessar under the C u.li ornia roc e re , 11 co rter- 1./B cl i n s are de But, as i n ny e . de ied, rt oft e nd no ans ier L o the i s necess · ry 1 e r, t e e e c 1 ti o o · r y 1ri t ten i nstrwnent ple ade in a co ... te cl u. i , i s dee ed admitted unles de 1.ie by affid avit . L/-7 ins i. ·orth v 1./B Code of Civil _roce d re, se ction 1+1-1-7• nk of C lifor nia , 119 Cal. ~70 • s to jurisdiction , co e 1 l i .1 o 1 tha n · 300 1, i tiff int e u L erio r o rt c·n b u e d et-of i recovers , but · n a .... ·i r e tive jud o- ent c (.. not be ~iven on it . It ust be ue d on i t h e J us ice ourt I ere t he ·uri dict ion (.. l a ount is 2 9. 9. up , and l aintiff's c · ls e of a c i on is defe te d , the defe d- .. ant is not preju ice ~ i bri 1 in s ep r ate ction i t he 4-9 Justic e curt on t e c t t e o~ i s c tercla im , later • In t h e Justice Co rt , defe drnt C ot ple d £) counter - 50 cl a i f or '1'300 or over l e s. : e . t exce s .i ving v· i ve e • a cou1 tercl a i .. agai nst an c t i on brou 0 h in the J u_ t ice Court , over t e jurisdiction~l , t, hi' ready is to sue in the Superior Court , re strain pl~intiff , ouit in the Juatice Court, ·nd c on e l hi m to c 1 tercl i a · inst the 51 Su erior Court ction • TS I n addit i o~ to tho ovi c io s a ove et out, t ere -re sever 1 so r.1 e ~ ,h t dif · ·erent p ovi ions . a e ~or co "ntercl - i s i n t he J ustice ourt . 1 ection 55 of the ode of Civil Procedure authorizes t . com1tercl i i u tice ourts s 1./-9 196 Gre -or VS Di . s , 113 C 1 • 50 Gre ory v · • l gs, 113 C 1 . 1 51 6 Gre or V • 113 C .. 1 . 1 l t follov.'s: "The ans¥1er y cont c.in a deni -1 of ny or · 11 of the teri .1 f acts st te t i the uo l · int, '1hi ·h the defe1dant believes to be untrue, nd a l o · st · t ncnt , i1 pl in nd direct 1 • nner , of - ny otner f acts constitutin · a defense or o tercl· im, upon ~l ie n action mi ht be grou ht by the defend nt t~inst t e plainti - ·f , or his as i nor, in a J st ice Cou.rt" . Section 8'56 of the Code of Civil Proced 1re furt her r ovides: 26 "If t h e defendant omit to set up co tercl im in t be c ase mentio e c int e last sec ion, nei~he l e or his assi nee ca n after, rd maint ' in an acti on a ins t the :plaintiff therefore''. fhis 1 tter m a res an ~nom lous siti ation. ,or i · sta ce:- does or .K f or , a nd . lu s A ·l i r- V '; C.' t t ··t ~ e C ~ lSe S . . d a e. , as ~i ~ - s l l · i J to C, an C sues on the cl im· , if ' s d Q' ,88S a r e e t , .... n t ela i n1 C ' n . t he e e receive ' full be ~ fit of t e ' but i f t e ... r e -re t ter t n Qf o de _ nd, he C c n L ere l r ec o .l.. unle s t L O 1nt 0 . p u em, e e - l 1 r e e st c....rt h to 110 1 h i n to int o - uit, ag ,i t , en · oining C 1 s J ustice Co rt action nd f orcin he ~ d ~ to countercl im in th unerior rt. Of c irse ti s situation co ~ ld n ot ise r L a u er i or Court lere th e r e .ie d of' er s --00 1 Ll .i- t i s 1ec o nized, but , no c o -c om!)l :- .i nt e i ng · 11 0 .· ed i J t ice Cot1rt, t e lo .ic -J l con l u ion i t t over t 1 e s i · e( cl i m. t h i s oint ho ever. -'- l o e . t he L lr l u of i s de nd o -uth or i t J e 1. u.va i l l e on So much for counterclaim , v1hich is a re. edy th · t has be en dev lopin throu c--h t 1 1 e centuries , and s not yet been confine within de i nite boundaries in it use , but is, in subs t a ce, an af·- 'irI •. ti ve le Ldin in t e -ns .er " , hich has t ~en the pl ce of rec o p. ent nd tle old set -off , ~ hich the Court have striven to con- in - in it s use , but due to the l oose l un ~ua e of t h codes, definitely do so . ve, so far , been unable to 27 IV o: I I . 0 I l T The cross-complaint i s old cross-bill of e ... u i ty , ;h i to the ori in 1 b i l l, b ~ i ch c o e r e e devel ope fr om t he vas n ncill ry p· oc e i ng de f .n dant , desir i ng af ·1rmat- ive relief of n e c itable nc:ture co ce - in t e L u.tte r o the original bill , was llo ~ e d to obt i t es -m e . Its pur pose wa s to obta in af f irn 1· t ive relief fo r de f •:; c1 .n t < i1s t the plaintiff , or a co-defendant , or · ner~on not ~ party to t he action, or to enable t he def e dL t o i te r ose 52 complete defens e to t he b i l l • more 1 V i th t he an1a l a a t i o11 of 1 .'J nd ec ~ i t u.nd t he adoption of t h e c ode s , t i eru i t ..I. r e r.1e < was nro ide d fo r by the codes i n a ood 1any juri s dic t ions , amon ~ them 53 California • ~2 _,, Sulliv · n vs C l i f orni ealt Co ., li/2 Ca l . 201 53 Code of Civil Proce d1 re , s ec • ci on J.µ./2. . 29 ' he . tne f i 1 i n :--· 0 ·Oo8 - C O 1 int e 0 .,. e - -. l ('I' n aloe o 1s to "\ t h.., old uit le • . es a r e ' Cl 0 e l Cl governin _ c - s - b i l ls . ..;uc 1 adin i s 0 e de -·end - nt to ion , . co t '- . n t ten t i ct nc l C sufi icient to s on~-4-it te .. C LJ, s e of a cti on \ .. ,i st t h e pl· int- if · i re ere nce t o the tr , s t ion 1 1:po · ,Licl). t o o i c in 1 v,ction i i. oru de j , or . ~ . t c c 1 c r o ;er v... o .l ich t e ori ·inal cti on re l te • b a defe dent a ·~i t i s ·c o - defen d , or even __ i nst c. rt r t o t l e ..... c t i on . o e no t he r o e o t e s "'-c. -L t e u e e L '-..I o e to do :1 ... ... " (...,,..., ~ multiplicit o · i bef r e .L.., e ...,0 1 rt 1 t Le is c e ~ relc ting t o et d ro : i r:: ou t of the s 1b ·ect - m' tte r of t 1 e · c •ion , t o e t i n e . . i th t is i n mind , we re not s r ise ~ t t e Co rt all owin the p aintiff to ile - c- ' S -c o pl ~i t 55 in act i on • Gene r ally , ' cro c• -, - c o 1 )1 i1 t ma • .L. o l v I tervenor e f · le c i '"' t.i, "LC ion 1,;herein tl e co ~p., .i t f or le >' a l r elief , ~ o '"ice ( it rows o 1t o t e sarJ tr r: action, u t asking for r elie ~t J a nn o v e i te - o e a i a . t .ble 54- Ta L r i son v · _,..cc ormicJ r- , 55 7 · 11 vs :i ne , 130 C 1 . 7 30 action , nor c ~-n e a uit ble relief be u~Jt by c10s -com 1 int 56 • l. ,n c t i n t 1 , e .. c e p 1here rovided for by st t te • I en e r 1 , t n 0 · o r . , t 1 r o c e d ll re iline , cross- co _ l ' i nt re t t o e 1 i c1 a.O\Jn fo r t c, co - l a i t. I t _u t t ,te C ' U e o- C' ( ct i n · ' ·u t be · s1vvered · t c · n be de . ..re c to ; r.4ust h ve co .. pl inants d defend - ts· ' nd .. u t be serve c o or t heir att orneys , · nd , t he a r . e if ne,., ... arties ...... re bro G t in , proce s m st be i s e . and 57 served 01 t em • r - - i <t ' t t · ... s a. ti .. e \Jith tl·e an _ er, le ve o - Court is nece sar , b ut i · i 1 e c. c1f t e r 56 c. n er, le e o O llrt i ece , . ry • ',, i t 1 the e f e v, e e r ·-.1 e r~ .... r ... ...., , l " 1rn t o our v c-1,liforn i Code rovi oi oro , -, d the C urts ' i ter ret t ion of tl e arJe . 56 C rroll v ro~ne , 5 Ore. 316 57 .erchants Tru t Co . v s e t el, 10 C, l. App . 75 5 Code o Civl roc e d re, ecvi n 4-42 . 31 VI US.c. ., I ; ' - l . I L uec t ion LJll- oft e 1 0 e o Civil of CL1-lifornio. e xpre ss l ro ide for o e dure oft e t ~t e oro ·s - c o pl· i t i n Co u t of rec ord i ti state . I t e : d 0 ' fo llo 1s : " 1h en ev e r t e e · d · t e tj · ,.. .... -· r. u. t iv e a - .. irst n rt , rel t~c · too de r i t u 0 1 the c on t r · c t , tr <- · c t i on , ·1a t t er , h a r ~ i n s or a c · · dent U)On ,h i ~ t e c ion i s -ou: t , or a f ~ eclJi t e p r o· 1 erty to ·1 i u e 1 . e c; , e 1._ , in c.... d i it i on t o i o ,1 u 1 ?1 e r , a t e ~ .;.: . t i ! • e , o r b ... .1 erI:.1 i Ci i o of Ollr t ~u . ._,e r~ ... e tl" , a c o 0 - co pl b. i t. ~he cro 0 ~ - c ol l a i nt tust be sere u o the rt · es • ffecte c t ereb t a cl ucl :r rtie 0 dc.1 d J u r or a r, e r t 1 ere t o as to t \e i , in~ 1 · r: -l e i t . I f any o t e par t ie ,_ a · ·f ecte o c1 Oo - co. 1 int , v e ot a~~ e d r e d ir the ction , a su~ ons u on t G 010s - com,lai nt must e i u d o er e d u o t e i n t1 s ~;::e r . · - . e r as u p n t 1 e c o r 1 .. e r c v L1 n t o i: n o - i i a 1 c J i on ' • 1. 1 h e ' OV e • 1 S tl e sec t i o i t s- r ds od _ ' fter e -e r · 1 end ents ,to t e oric.: in 1 c t e ., in 1( 7 4-· The 1 s t amendn ent, p s e· - in 1 23 , c de t b r ds rr lv tter, enin s or ace.; ident", t ereb.,. re tl" exte in t e SC e of t 1 e sec t ion. 2 . A cros 1 int . e cJ,d i n • e :r e c t 1 i nt , -c m 1 8 p , l ., 0 ~ f i l e d by the defe da • a n .L.. • :ple ::.d i l a ClJlOn , 0 e or .. o e 5 llS0S of -=-- 1 ction n . st n 1 er t o .L i on C · 1 0 ...,(. r .. (:l U C LI ...., • ... 59 D vi s v s Su e r · or ourt , 1 5 C 1 . 7 It • not t 0 t nsvJe r , bllt • u.n inde 1 ndent 1 a l e ]. .. ~le l.. il ; , re c iri (., n I0 ny be ao- inst co- def ~nd nt , l o.inti bot . f uct n .,. arty to t e ' o~ ' in ~ ct ion , . C, - tr·neers to the • action , C ve l t,J in ,r v · c i t e r e f i t br 60 ti fter orde r obt ined fro r the Court • It is not li . ited to defe d nts , be e use it h o e L held t a u /'"' 1 - inat a interv nor i l e - compl· int • o t o le · in t.: , the c os.' - COm 1 ·nt ee : s 00 e o rn · le a t e n co . 1 ~ : · nt . It . -- s t J t ance re t e s . e ~ those o t 1 e · 1 e 0 se~-e r ~ .11 C u e s of ' C '-' i be le - cled • '/hile t e Court :.-.. Ve , . fe~ eld t + 1 •1int l a ca 0 e - • eras ·- com ' u n ed not be so de . hted , to sidered t he e 0 a lC ' . ori t~ ul . - ~ - it ould , und L llSt be r1 se -.-, 0 e - -, v - · u d, :; • ate < 1- int f or nition , .J... is l cl C 0 v - C 0 f.1 rec o v ~o ba l ,; b . du.e t f c...ct a 1 . t l e C os N - c l r e- ·-1 e r , d ·i r .1 -ti ·e ,., t te r • t r e a does (. 1- s ·er n ot • It . ile ~~ tT .L' course " t C f.1 i Je t e 0 .L -tn ~1 r . il i . ile d fte:r wards , der of l, ' Uv . l 0 ol rt Ju t e lJ 0 t - i ec -1- 0 ile it . r.)1 i orde 0 C I O Y•in e r 1 . t 12 c .. 1 . 5 1 • , .. I 11 V 2 ~ . es 13 Cal . 7 1 ' V , • l 3 er V ilton , 81.I- C 1 . 5 } • .. 1 V elvin , al • 2'3 32 33 obtained wither on n exp rte r.otion, or on · motion on 64- notice • fter the c ~as - co pl ' i ti sur ans on the at rne Ts oft- e ap eare c in the c ion, but i · 'ile , it i erve J • bout rt · e ~ J, o t e · 1 ready e o · t e cro0s -defe 4du.nts were not nnrtie to t e oric inal ct i n, c-1 " on is is ed on the cross-complt int , nd t ese e rties re served 5 as are the defend nt in the ori ~ i n 1 action • . crous-compl int can be filed i• un c ion only ~ en the c ·.., 1°e of uc t i n t ere ple ded: 1) el ,.te s o or de ends upon the contr'ct or tr O ction sued upon; (L) Or affects the nronert, to 1 ich the _ in ct i on rel~tes; (3) Or hen it affects or tends to re · uce or de • e t pl . vif Tv C us e of I 66 action • or {si ce 1923) ( l.J- ) '/hen it rel te to or de ends ' upon the matter, h . , enings, or accident s 8 'l u on . s to the irst ubdivi ion bove , i t been eld . ere ants to recover .., dv c l ade b e j. to de±'e d '" nt upon a crop of grapes a nc sale, the defend nt . isins in exces o f"le - G r ocee G. 0 of iff 1 e as ignors, averrin th -t the [One cue l for : · id in 61.J- Code of Civil Proce , ure, secti n 65 Code of Civil ocedure, . J+l-12 sec ion 66 Scarbor 1l h , Code le di _ nd r e. C ice , ' . eCvl 25. p rt perform~ ce oft eir contr· ct \ ith im, nd t t they c..r e li c..bl e to l i f o bre c 1 o t ·01tr ct upon their part . ~ i s relate vO nd d e do upon t co tr· ct or tr~nsaction upo . e nin o section t e c ion is b,. u t , • ithi t e 67 '..2 of the ode of Civil ... oce re • I n an action to enjoi def.., dant fr oL re inin • in plaintif f ' ho1se , alleging er em loy ent as serv nt di sch · re , held t J t cros s - compl c.. int 'lle .in - a forner .ar 1ia e it l- 1 · int iff , div orc e , nd misi for n tion b plnintif - th N t they had be.n r r - ie d a a in 6 u antum ~~erui t f or her services , v1 ,... go od and a • I t h s a l 0 0 be en held t t · t , i 'I c~ion b ing pl int - 31./- . d i ff f ose rirbts de e on t c en ·orce G nt of tle ille 1 contract made by intereste d direct or u of defe dant corp- oration , the cor ")orati n , may be cross - corn l · •n.L. bri in ne -;· art 'ih O TJas a pa,rt to tne co tr' ct nd u, t t ac c the 69 validi ty 0 • t ... e contr c-4 and eek to Ve it nnulled • . . . I t held .L. t} !- t ction for wa in <.. rec en L, c · se i r: an cl · im d delive of a 1tom o ile , defend-nt L UY c oss - compl r in for frnu ~ int e s a l 0~ t e s r e to him , b il ~ing 70 i n 4nothe r par~~ on hi c ros -c omplaint • I n ac -ion fo r specifi c er ·o ta ce of alle e d agree . ent t o e recute ~n the defend· nt interno ed cross - co pla int .._ 67 I.""c en nie V 6S od ~in , 12 C 1 . 591 l" ixer V 69 ,.. . . 1xer , 2 C 1 . • pp . 227 Goode 1 VS er u o ~tc . Co ., 138' C-1 . 30 70 c :er . :· n v Sc ltz , 17 C 1 . 190 35 in ejoct . ent , not:it t ~ dine the for□ of ction for specific ~erform nee i e itable in nature nd th· t in ej ctment is le : 1 in it s O ect , the Co urt 71 nower toe ter ju.d ent in eject J 1ent • Still · t i · 11 C vi O 1 , n a Ve 11 c1. 0 re aeainst the ven oe to rec over OS e c• uion O . l r l d he c ·- 1. e of re __ c b t V e e o · t e c tr ct of .. rc1 :.. e , t 1 e vende . , ., n ot , b r c - ,·os - c or..plaint , set up an a c vion for d : .mae;e r- ec :.., .se o~ t e r: i re - nre se1 t c .. , t i is of pl -int iff re ardin t e p! 0 c"t U C ti Vi t; of -'- e 1 nd 'nd ..L.. e \ ter su 1 u l, thereon---a tort inde e de t of he 0 es 0 0 i -ht {.; to t 1 nd ~· 1 i h is t e SU je c tter of l.. 1~ intiff ' co plaint n the ot er · nd • 1 t an o.ct ion or th v oreclo ure ly e 72 of c.n e c~ ,1 i t le , ort 0' u. e sec nrin a romi •0;ory note , the defend n .J_ c nno..L.. set up, by wa t) o ~ c :::·os s - compla int c · u e o l.' ctio1 • ..J . t -~ ~ins 0 is 0 u nee and le def end a t i r of · n · tt !'.1c~ . ent on t l e p· o _ erty of the rior ction institute by the plaintiff on the note . uch c ~ s e of a ction doe not ar ise out of the 73 tr (..:, acti o set fo tl i u e c o l '- int • · tnd a · in , rhere pl i:r:tif - ' u e O..L cti · s · lle 0 ed int e co ~lint is one ~ri inu out of contr· ct to · y for , r ter old ·nd d livered , c roo - compl int bn e · u on ~n le ed .. · n-11 t to 71 .offinell v s of inell , 191 Ca l . 7J 3 72 r ettle v il l ;Joister , 61~ 0 ' ,l . · pp . 9 73 Clark vs :e 1 , l · 3 C 1 . 07 • receive w ter, no b re of ..... ny on tr· ct d , c1 e l , it h pl intiff , bu t i virt1 1e o _.re of c-toc : i· l •;.inti -f 7L~ com any , fail<".'." to t·..:.te u c ~ .. u e o er ~-action • int e c a se of co11nterclaim , 1.ihe con ection El 1 t e n direct ne , .nd one only indirectly connecte ( ill not s to \iJh [ t .. ct ~ :i t !J pro pert 1 to ' } i c -'- e c. C 1.1 ion re l t t es" , i n e , ..., n h e d t t t ,_ e 1) ... o ~ i i on i o code for J a C r O S c• - C O J TI 1 [1 i t ' e re ~ fir 1 t ive relief i s I ou lt f ectin th ro I e t,, to r,~ i c:t t e a c t i on rel te s ' 0 1 re qu i - e c t _ o,t there c.l be ,o . e c onnecti on betr1 e o· t e c _., 1 e of act ion in t e c r oc , .., _co 1 1 ir t ' ro .1e rt to · ,. ic the ction , .. 75 rel tes 11 t 0 .J and , it 1 a be -. hel d L t . a n • er v ... in a ction to quiet title to te r lo\·1 in ... fro r, rte . v,e 11s J 1 ~ 1 n sit 1·',te d 01 1 d dee ded b a ;nter co p n to t e pl intiff , defendants, ,1 o e cla i n o_ t i -'cle to rt t ereof . i ht be deterr ined upon t ~ e co. l a int ~nd answer , c ~r ot n ~inta in a cross - c artie s o co -·tr ct ~ ith 0 not ·~ . a rt J , by pltintiff ' a t or, to 1 :r i , r .1 ich def nd nt o '0 e <""Uar o.nteed ' 11y .. ly of \\'cl e r from '""'nother and cli ti nct 01 1.~ce not involved in t e ction , in case the S ll r,nly r : .1nte d to t er1 from t1 · rtesinn 1ell L ould 7 hot p ~ove sufficient • 74- 6 Imperi 1 '.'✓ate r Co . v . 11.~ eserve , C- 1 . n . 5 3 75 Stoc ""ton ' in.a- k vs rrold , 127 c __ .1 • 12 76 Le 1is VS Fox ' 122 C 1 . 2 ~ 37 to" hen it feet or t d u to rec 1ce or defe t p l u i1 tiff ' , .; " ., 1 old in -- tl · .t . n ction on rec e ' ~~e 1 ve - ~ iI pro . l c• ., 0 r not ' J nt o· '"' onuide tio i a l o 1 defe1 e , 77 nd . not .L · ect 0 . a c · o s - c o l r int • '11 0 on e to iG lJ ' t · ·ec t t 1 ~1 .. , ,_ e . _ l 1 ... il .i. • e e e . r~ C C . - 0 .J i 1 L-n . - ction to _ oI·e clor.e tgage . , . · ·e c t 0 1 ' TI .i1e r , ~· 0 • in e tre ate ~ 1,Ch d -·ins t rj .. 1 , t he 0 t -ol c, i ti Pf f U def :.ult lon "' te t i .. 1 ot ·ns.eri or de . . ~ or rr I ' 76 t_ ere t o , ot c. i d defer d nts l d . · ill lot c .. t • i n e- C ,:,~S8 , t} v C 01lrt 1 eld the f· ct r i n t J so - c allee c r o s - com 1 int cons it1te c onl .., 0. C ot u. c ~o s - c or.1 l ·- · nt , a cti on n e t i n ) , a · c i o · , o quiet t · tle , i n ·i icl defe 1d -11t '19 r e 7 ie s title . h i . elf , ·- coopl int . unn cessar y u on in r◄ cr o i ., • It a~ e ., h . l d r e ' te e 1 -4- , t . v a i C . i -n on tort, n indo nde t -ort C r ot et u 'II '... - d, . ~ of cross - 0 c o l'"' 1 . t er , . . • de nt to r t h ns beco e i • ... o-r-. e l L .. Il l .._ more i ~port nt ~ "1 es vi on ur d ou t e 1 i1ce t e ;endment of ourt .. ill c onstrue t ., e d ition o the till rJ , t t e of • .L co n ecvure , (:. s e h not e en n c ·rect i te ~ ret - tion oft e~ uince e n~ss e of . - , e n . ent . le ·,rly t ey are 77 s., i n V E 1 :in ' 7 c q 1 . 7~ ... od. e r "- V ... ec :h r: ' 1 0 Cd,l . 23 7 ~. 1 V e J.: letc .. e 100 1. lLJ-2 ,41 . I.,.) t io E rl V r 1 • " ... . .i. l. J. e S - ,. l ... or 0 • t 1 5 C 1 . 1 5 3 m e 1 nt L, 0 enl r e t e s op of ' u 0 ,...,11 to _,,,,, ' .... • llde , p "i , ril torts ich 1 edt inc • v e l OT 0 " IJ . u on a ,.at e - o · c ro - CO l l ·- i t , ~ 1 e e tl- e l not r .:en to co 1 e . 1 i th i one of t1 e 0 e- .. o-i uiO 0 t 1 e C"'I e C ion clearl y . 1'l e cros - compl int . })le ~ded l t o j llSt a c-, co 1 (. i t , nc i f 1... TI 'Je r 0 i n • 0 e d ·, it . t e '-..,, ' C .:-Ju ~ 11 l' '0 - . u l ' t en d ~, s 11 o ··e ~ by t., 0 ode or 1le - il t c r o - ' coo~l i nnnt , , r -1 i g .;.. l u.int i :.o~ er ore , a v ~ e _ u lt entere - upon it • C J.' OS S - I t is the op i nio o c om l · .i t :-1i _l not lie i 1 our t , but ut or it see _s to be 1 c ri - • 'ec0ion ~52 of t ~e or e o - Ci il Proce ure e 1 ,. 1 8 r te G t r e ~ l e ad in s i ice · ' ou rt, r d C oa s - co , l a int i not nu ner t e { t h e s r e co de , p ovide s : , on , m , but ection 57a of n "'~ ➔ • i r L 1a t i e j u d r e t f • • e en ~.- e re d f o r t e de e d 2n t on i cro ·- com 1 int \ henever t e defe1 cl --~ t 1J .. ove s -.L t h '~ t e i e n t i e to ore t n t e p i nt i " ,. s p OYen or -rhe:neve r t h e pl· i tif ·· f ils to p- ove th it 1 e i enti l ed to nJ ~ id ____ 1ent . ' Ho ever, it i s t _ e co sen 1s of o i nion th t , i n th i se ction , "C . -,unt e r e 1 ° i m n i Je -...- t i ste d o n C os - co. pla i t" , especially i n v · ew of se c t i o 52 . - a c- o s- compl i J l t ice 01rt , · d ~u i ~ ·ction o - tho Su erio Co rt i s ~l ~oo r e v ~ op , 119 c, 1. ~33 33 $300 or over, the A mou.nt involv ed in • . cra ve -compla int must nec e ~ arily be ~300 or over. Ji th t 1 ese re r-. · r 1 :e n t o the ener .. 1 us e · · nd interpretat ion of t1 e c ~ .. os -complaint st t lte in c~ .. liforni - , let us no 1 tr~ a co _n ri on o · t e t 10 renJd ie o of cro 0 -c ompl int nd con ercl i m. C II~ l?TER VII 1'he e s ,·enti 1 iffere ce e t o e , u_ c · o · i t o t, e decisions of t he C· lif orn i ~ Co r ts , ' ·ollo JS : ( 1 ) r.ih co11ntercl a im t le ~nsrer, \~bile th e cros c •-c ompl ( i nt i L .. e L r r.te I le a din.. nd r: l t be ,ns vered; ( 2 ) .l. c o nterc l o. i m c · n be i led onl y b T a defe dant, a nd mu t be a . inst a 1 . l i 1ti · int e i g ina l e f i l e d " =i de e1da t i t , ; nd , i action; t h e cro s -compla i nt ,' ag inst any oth e r j~ ,rt :v to t} ~ay be f iled b~ a plaintiff c inst ot er · rtie to the action; (3 ) The co : nterc l ~i m, b ~ ·irt e oft e eco1 d subdivision of section ~3 of t e Code of Ci i l P oc e f ure, may c ons iQ t of an a c t ion on a se ~, r ate , i d ,,ndent cont ·' c t Tihere the nain a c t ion i s on c ont r ' ct; the e r as - com l a i t c annot be on an i n dependent con t r ct; (~ ) Te o~ tercl· im cam1ot be b ase d on a s e t te cl im to origina l a c t io n c oncerns t Jat ro :er _;. • t C C :i.· OS C." - c O _ ul " int ' t may be; (5) The sta t ute o li , it -tio s as · s t a o nt e r cla im, ce ases t o run " i t t, e · " lin ~ o t e c om:pl i nt i n the ma in action; but t l e s t t 1te of li i t . v i ns i no t i nter:-cu t e d in matters cros s -co . J l a i ne - , 1mtil tl e c : os -c ompl · int is filed. On t he other h and, t hey -re c i i l· r in . u re ects : ( 1 ) They are o t h c r o s '"" - a c t i on s ; ( ' ) o t c ~ .. 11 for a n f i t ! t iv e relief; ( 3) Both mus u s t ate a c ~. 1 e o· ~ .. c i o1 1; (~) r he .. ' rpo e of otl se ms to be to do a\"lf . .,, v, i th a mul t ipl ic it O.i its 1 d cir8uit., of c 4 i ons , nd to settle in one it, all . ~tters t ~t mai be dee· ded bet ieen the •"')artie , ,, ithout .. confu r• in the i vu.es of tbe ' in su.i t, p ovidin . s11ch matters ve un, bea in . on the r tter 0f the main dispute. CH PTER VIII Bec ·.l1s e of the siEil rit o· t e t ,1 0 r eredie s , t e Court 0 h· .. ve often .i t ' . ~ enly inter o ed t - t ll ino- "Countercla ims", "Cros 0 -com 1 ints", c...- d vice versa, d have one so f r as to s ~ , t •.l t L.v d i c ·tion is ,iven to~ ple din - , it will b 80n tr ed t o e · J tit re a.lly is• Tl iu 1 S VallS e practiti oner, and ofttir e ut u t r. in dile i. i o ong to s · ered or not . 11 it is a c oss -compl int, it ml t be n , ere d , or a de~ a 1lt be t ;ken on it, but, i f i t i .er .l T u • 1s necessary. 1'hus, in o de ple din int e ns ~er 0 n o ld be 11 f ·'irn1 t ive s ~ered, · l e s it cle Grly a r ear to be erely a m_tter o · de e7se. The re ~l di ~fe r enceu i t eir proce ·ure, 'nd the re d esn' t ee , , o JY i ci .le , to be ny re ~1 reason for thio. inst ~nce:- .n answer' ~ nur pose iu p ~i aril to nri e t e ... p 1 int if \' h :.;, t the defen d· .n t ' 1 in e of def e s e is u o be , s o that he · . , i 11 not be ,.., u 1 . .t i O e a on tr i ~ 1 • · '. , then , u ou.ld not ' Il answer be re • uired i t" e C " e ..(..' 0.L 1 tercla im? I t clearly set s up ne 7 atter i n th - f o ... . o <: , ne 1 c 1 s e of action, and the defend [l,nt choul d , ·.i,ve o . e i 1 ~11n o · ~ , at plaintiff' s defense to it is o to be . I t hao be n so.id tim e · - nd ac ·•i , t 1 u, t e Code Proce : 11re i to in pl i f ~ le l. i • I f - o e o " t e c · se ' it ould cert inly cle·· - · u ucl e :-is in do11bt , both in the mdnds 0 our Judges , nc1 in tl e ind o- r 1 ctitioners , to tne • t -il i ,. uo tercl · . or cros 0 -co 1 int in 1 op l 0 • l t. . and t the time , dhere to t t . c i 1 le , • iven c c.se , s e p ] . c..,, if t 1e e t :1 0 re ..1ec1ies ould be onsolid ' te , . in one ·--' t tute , ich hould o -ide for u cross - cornpl int nd it resent procedire , but ith the dded scope of 1rese t co tercl' im . HO\ 1e • e , it 1 o -1 c1 not be o c j _ 1 i 11 · o e xt e c1 - op 0 ~ . ec,e t vo re. e ie beyo 110 . c:over j_ I e J ' • e ., 1 l con°olid, · t C. st tl te . ler t e C 011rt ·one t C 1 ,. 0 s 0 1 l tter to ert ' .,inl t t e . 1an,,,r 1 e .. t d o conf 1 e tl~.e is s1 e o g u , r C e cl · [ in° t , o u .1 c r 1 i s e v o c1 e P o e d ll. re , '"J i 11 , b it s v o 1n ei d . istor i t e onl . ·· I l ... 110 r ; iYl · C rt :.,, i1 r,eu lt t e l' .:ain ' Cvi on. ~ · i .. u t be u O-C f e c ~ i~ 1·cit o - t e 1 i it , de - e - its e .,1r .te tre - t - r. o t Of t e t r ~' 0 re r.. e '" i e u O C O l 1 t C 1 1 i .. · d C O c ' - C O . _ 1 a int • S1 L ll i tory lone det in r ,,j r 1 • TI " ., U,..!. .a.... C u il e u 1at is lon . overd11e, ' conv nience n re n de 1 and? .BIBLIOGRAPHY TABL E OF CASES CITED Ackerman vs Schultz, 176 Cal. 190 Ainsworth vs ~ank of California, 119 Cal. ~70 Bannerot vs McClure, 39 Colo. ~92 Carroll vs Browne, 55 Ore. 316 Clark vs Kelly, 163 Cal. 207 Clay vs Carroll, 67 Cal. 19 Curtis vs Sprague et. al., iµ Cal. 59 Davis vs Hurgren et. al., 125 C 1. !JE Davis vs Superior Court, 165 Cal. 70g Earl vs Times-Mirror Co., 1g5 Cal. 165 Engebretsen vs Gay, 15S Cal. 27 Folsom vs Carli, 6 1 111inn. ij.2.0 Glide vs Kayser, 11.J.2 Cal. lp.9 Goodell vs Verdugo etc. Co., 135 Cal. Gregory vs Diggs, 113 Cal. 196 Haglee VB Palmer, 7 Cal. 51.J-3 Harris vs Taylor, 53 Conn. 500 Harrison vs McCormick, 69 Cal. 616 Hart vs Buckley, l.1.12 Cal. l.J-19 306 Imperial Water Co. VB M eserve, 62 Cal. App. 593 Lewis VS Fo~. 122 Cal. 21.pJ. Lindsay vs Stewart, 72 Cal. 5~0 McKenzie vs Hodgkin et. al., 126 Cal. 591 Merohants Trust Co. vs Bentel, 10 Cal. App. Milla vs Fletcher, 100 Cal. llJ.2 Mixer vs Mixer, 2 Cal. App. 227 Moore vs Copp, 119 Cal. ~33 Perkins vs West Coast Lumber Co., 120 Cal. Poly etc. Co. vs Williams, 101 Cal. 6!J.8 Provident etc. Co. vs Davis, li/-3 Cal. 253 Roberts vs Donovan, 70 Cal. 105 Rodgers vs Peckham, 120 Cal. 23~ Roffinella vs Hoffinella, 191 Cal. 753 75 25 Rogers et. al. vs Sothern California etc. Co., 159 Cal. 735 Shain vs ~elvin, 79 Cal. 262 St. Luuis National Bank vs Gay, 101 Cal. 266 Stockton Savings Bank vs Harrold, 127 Cal. 612 Story etc. Co. vs Story, 100 Cal. 30 Sullivan vs C·- ilifornia Realty Co., lij.2 Cal. 201 Thomas Fruit Co. vs Start, 107 Cal. 206 Van Bibber vs Hilton, 6~ Cal. 5i6 Wall vs Mines, 130 Cal. 27 Wigmore vs Buell, 116 Cal. 9~ Wood vs Brush, 72 Cal. 22~ Yorba vs Ward, 109 Cal. 107 Zettle vs Gillmeister, 6~ Cal. App. 669 ll-5 TEXTS AND O THER AUT O RITIES Pomeroy, • ., Pomeroy's Code Remedies, 3rd ed. Little, Brown and Co., n. p., 1g9~. McKinney, William M . and Rich, Burdett A., RU ING CASE LAW, vol. 2~, Bancroft-Whitney Co., San Francisco, California, 1919. Scarborough, James G., CO DE PLEAD i rG AlvD ~ RACTICE, Coan, Charles, STAI D A IID ENCYCLOPAEDlA OF PRODE~URE, vol. 6 L. D . Powell Co., Los Angeles, California, 1913. S!rATUTES California Code of Civil Proce :ure, sections: Statute 2 George II, ch. 22

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Inception of the federal judiciary

PDF

Corporate combinations mergers and consolidations

PDF

The three fourths jury in criminal cases not involving the death penalty

PDF

The permanent court of international justice

PDF

The legality of exclusive agency contracts

PDF

Domestic infelicity in Los Angeles county as exemplified in the records filed in the office of the county clerk from January 1, 1923 to July 1, 1923

PDF

Public utility valuation: a study of the problem of determining in public utility rate cases the "rate-base" upon which a fair return should be predicated

PDF

To what extent may the state impair the property rights of the individual

PDF

The doctrine of spendthrift trusts in the United States and in the state of California

PDF

The Code and the common law

PDF

Why the railroad commission's control of privately owned and operated public utilities corporations differs from its control of municipally owned and operated public utilities

PDF

The law of charitable trusts in California

PDF

Public service legislation in the state of California

PDF

The doctrine of "equitable restraints in land."

PDF

Trust estates

PDF

Torrens title system

PDF

Judicial supremacy

PDF

The freedom of speech and of the press in the United States: extent and limitations

PDF

The effect of the assumptions and exercise of federal control on the criminal features of prior interstate commerce acts

PDF

The doctrine of equitable estoppel

Asset Metadata

Creator Davis, Kenneth Ashton (author)

Core Title Counterclaim and cross-complaint under the codes and advantages of consolidating the two

School School of Law

Degree Juris Doctor

Degree Program Law

Degree Conferral Date 1925-05

Publication Date 05/10/1925

Defense Date 05/10/1925

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Digitized in 2022 (provenance)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC112719519

Unique identifier UC112719519

Identifier Law J.D. '25 D262 (call number),etd-DavisKenneth-1925.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-DavisKenneth-1925

Document Type Thesis

Format theses (aat)

Rights Davis, Kenneth Ashton

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230127-usctheses-microfilm-box6a (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu