Lescoe v. Kinstler

2 Citing cases

  1. 98 Lords Highway, LLC v. One Hundred Lords Highway, LLC

    138 Conn. App. 776 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012)   Cited 25 times
    In Lords Highway, the absentee apparently held a somewhat mysterious title document, which might invalidate the plaintiff's claim to the property, but it was the objective of the defendants to defeat the plaintiff's claim, which they accomplished without reference to the absentee's title document, and the action was allowed to proceed in the absentee's absence.

    Boothe v. Armstrong, supra, 76 Conn. at 532, 57 A. 173. “[T]he word ‘counterclaim’ was intended to be the generic term for all cross demands other than setoffs, whether in law or in equity.” Lescoe v. Kinstler, 136 Conn. 253, 255, 70 A.2d 131 (1949). A cross complaint consists of “properly pleaded ... material facts affecting the status of the parties ... which afforded the basis of its claim against the plaintiff, and asked for relief by way of judgment in its favor.”

  2. Gattoni v. Zaccaro

    52 Conn. App. 274 (Conn. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 28 times

    "[T]he word `counterclaim' was intended to be the generic term for all cross demands other than setoffs, whether in law or in equity." Lescoe v. Kinstler, 136 Conn. 253, 255, 70 A.2d 131 (1949). Under Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the defendants' claim for an injunction would qualify as a compulsory counterclaim, since "it arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the opposing party's claim."