Court Opinion

ID: 9612092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:04:44.65348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:10.593140
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring and dissenting) .
' I concur with the main opinion’s enumerated conclusions save the third, which holds the counterclaims not premature. I agree with Mr. Justice WORTHEN that such counterclaims are adjudicable only upon determination of the main fact of this suit, . — compromise point. If such be the case, then the very authorities cited by Mr. Justice WADE bear out this writer’s contention that the counterclaims are not only premature, but are improper in this action, since he quotes approvingly from Barron & Holtzoff, among other things that “ ‘a claim for damages growing out of * * * the action * * * or contingent on its outcome is not a proper counterclaim.’ ”
I cannot subscribe to other quoted language that the new rules “are designed for the swift and just disposition of legal disputes,” if such quotation be meant to apply to the instant case, since, apparently because of disagreement in the interpretation of such rules, it goes to the publishers enveloped in a four-year cloud of jurisprudential smog.