376 P.2d 518 | Colo. | 1962
delivered the opinion of the Court.
De minimis non curat lex. This is an $18.00 tempest over a tea cart. Plaintiff in error — a collection agency— sued as assignee of a motor carrier to collect a freight bill in the above amount for delivery of the cart. The article was admittedly damaged by the carrier, and it cost the defendant $25.00 to repair it. He set up in his
Plaintiff in error claims that since the pleadings of defendant denominated his defense as a “counter-claim” it could not be asserted against the collection agency, therefore defendant must pursue his remedy against the trucking company direct. The claimed error is that the court converted a counterclaim into a set-off contrary to the pleadings.
The court was correct. Black’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition, defines counterclaim as:
“A claim presented by a defendant in opposition to or deduction from the claim of the plaintiff. A species of set-off or recoupment introduced by the codes of civil procedure in many of' the states, of a broad and liberal character.”
Rule 8 (c) R.C.P. Colo, also takes care of the situation in the following language:
“* * * When a party has mistakenly designated a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court on terms, if justice so requires, shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation.”
As to the propriety of a court allowing damages to a consignee as against the freight bill see Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co. v. Lindell, 281 U. S. 14, 50 Sup. Ct. 200, 74 L. Ed. 670.
The judgment is affirmed.