Case Name: McKinney v. SOUTHWESTERN LIQOUR CO.
Court: Texas Courts of Civil Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1918-03-14
Citations: 201 S.W. 1162
Docket Number: No. 816
Parties: McKinney v. SOUTHWESTERN LIQOUR CO.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 201
Pages: 1162–1162

Head Matter:
McKinney v. SOUTHWESTERN LIQOUR CO.
(No. 816.)
(Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.
March 14, 1918.)
Set-Off and Counterclaim <⅞^35(1) — Liquidated Items — Value of Time, and Expenses.
In suit on a note, where defendant counterclaimed for plaintiff’s breach of agreement to pay defendant the reasonable value of his time in the performance of certain services and the expenses which he incurred, the value of defendant’s time and the amount of expenses incurred being alleged, the trial court erred in sustaining exception on the ground that the the items were unliquidated demands.
Appeal from El Paso County Court; E. B. McClintock, Judge.
Suit by the Southwestern Liquor Company against B. F. McKinney.- From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
P. E. Gardner, Hudspeth & Harper, and L. A. Dale, all of El Paso, for appellant. A. R. Grambling, Juan Smith, and Beall, Kemp & Nagle, all of E’l Paso, for appellee.

Opinion:
HIGGINS, J.
Appellee sued appellant upon a promissory note. By cross-action, appellant set up a counterclaim arising out of a breach of contract. It was alleged by McKinney that he had performed certain services for appellee and incurred certain expenses in the performance thereof; that ap-pellee had agreed to pay the reasonable value of his time in the performance of said services and the expenses which he had incurred. The value of his time and the amount of expenses incurred were alleged.
An exception to the counterclaim was sustained upon the ground that the items thereof were unliquidated demands, and could not be set off against the plaintiff's demand. The items claimed in set-off were not unliquidated. McCarty v. Squyres, 34 S. W. 356; De June v. Brubaker, 5 Tex. Civ. App. 79, 24 S. W. 79; Bank v. Lynch, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 590, 25 S. W. 1042; Snelling v. Koerner, 27 S. W. 887.
The court erred in sustaining the exception. Reversed and remanded.
<@^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes