Case Name: DONNEGAN ET AL. v. ARMOUR ET AL.
Court: Cuyahoga Circuit Court
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1888
Citations: 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 244
Docket Number: 
Parties: DONNEGAN ET AL. v. ARMOUR ET AL.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio Circuit Decisions
Volume: 2
Pages: 244–245

Head Matter:
ATTACHMENT.
DONNEGAN ET AL. v. ARMOUR ET AL.
1. Defenses not a Counterclaim or Set-off.
In an- attachment suit the defenses cannot be made that the attachment wa* a malicious prosecution, or that it was' wrongful.
8. Undischarged Attachment.
A defense should show that the attachment has been terminated.
Error by defendant below.

Opinion:
Armour et al. sued Donnegan et al. for goods sent them to sell on commission, and procured an attachment which was executed, and remained undissolved iirdicrh?rg''d.
Hessenmueller & Gallup, for plaintiff in error.
Henderson, Kline & Tolies, for defendant in error.
Donnegan et al. as a second defense, sought to recover for said attachment as a wrongful attachment, in the same suit, and
Third — For the same attachment as a malicious prosecution.
Held: 1. As to the third defense, that it was insufficient, not setting forth the termination of the attachment.
2. Again, it was not a proper counter-claim or set-off. As to the second defense.
3. Held: First, not a counter-claim, as not connected with the subject ol the action.
4. Second, it was no proper set-off, as not in existence at the beginning dfffhe suit.