Court Opinion

ID: 6905416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-23 21:59:32.244517+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:06:19.677714
License: Public Domain

Opinion
Per Curiam.
1, 2. It is maintained by plaintiff’s counsel that the part of the answer alleging the injury to and the death of the defendant’s horse is an attempt to interpose a defense sounding in tort to an action founded upon a contract, and for that reason the facts thus set forth do not constitute a counterclaim within the meaning of that term as defined by statute: Section 74, L. O. L. The lease of the horse arose out of a contract, and though the facts stated in the answer relating thereto are not well averred, this part of the defense fairly constitutes a counterclaim; and, invoking Section 3 of Article VII of the Constitution, relating to such matters, the judgment in this particular should be approved.
3, 4. It is insisted by defendant’s counsel that an error was committed in granting a judgment of nonsuit as to the tenth counterclaim. It is not averred in that part of the answer that the plaintiff’s officer who made the alleged false representations was then acting within the scope of his authority or for the plaintiff. The facts thus set forth do not constitute a defense to the action, and no error was committed in the re*307spect mentioned. The court, however, should have instructed the jury as requested by the defendant as to the attorney’s fee. To allow the sum of $100 for collecting $48.77 as the remainder due on a promissory note is certainly unreasonable, and, this being so, the judgment is modified to allow only $25 as an attorney fee, and in all other respects affirmed.
Modified and Affirmed.