Court Opinion

ID: 7136546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-24 15:24:33.946399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:14:38.848071
License: Public Domain

Extension op Opinion bt
Judge Carroll
Overruling petition for rehearing Dec. 6, 1907.
In a petition for rehearing the point is made on behalf of appellant, that appellee should not have the right to assert, as against the city’s claim for street improvements, the counterclaim for damages. The improvement was not made by the city, but by a contractor, and the injury and resulting damage to appellee’s property, if any, was committed by the contractor. After completing the contract, the contractor assigned his claim to appellant, and the rule that would deny a property owner the right to assert a counterclaim or set-off against the city, if the work had been done by it, and it was seeking to assert its lien, does not apply. As assignee of the contractor’s claim, the city occupies no better position than the contractor, and appellee can set up against it any claim for damages that he could have asserted against the contractor. (Kentucky Statutes, sec. 474; Civil Code, sec. 19.) The doctrine that the property owner may rely upon a set-off or counterclaim in a suit by a contractor is expressly decided in Bodley v. Finley 23 Ky. Law Rep. 851, 64 S. W. 439. The petition for rehearing is overruled.