
    5330.
    (Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)
    PETER GARDNER COOPERAGE COMPANY vs. GILBERT HATTIER COMPANY.
    1. It is of the essence of the plea in compensation that it admits the debt sued on.
    2. Hence, a plea which denies the debt sued on and puts plaintiff to the proof thereof and which prays for a judgment in reconvention cannot be regarded as falling within the terms of Articles 1091, 1092, 1093 C. P. on the subject of compensation.
    3. Where the litigants reside in the same parish, reconvention cannot be pleaded, unless the incidental demand is necessarily connected with the mam one.
    Appeal from the First City Court, Division “B.”
    Foster, Milling, Brian and Saal, -for plaintiff and appellee.
    J. J. Eitayilc, for defendant and appellant.
   DUFOUB, J.

This is a suit brought on an open account in the City Court. The answer is a general denial, coupled with a demand in reconvention for an amount equal to that sued for and a prayer for judgment therefor. Both parties are domiciled in New Orleans.

At the trial, plaintiff objected to the introduction of any testimony in support of the reconventional demand on the ground that it is in no way connected with or incidental to the main demand. 35 An., 387.

The objection was sustained by the lower Court and judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff on the main demand and dismissing defendant’s reconventional demand as in case of non-suit.

October 23rd, 1911.

Appellant seeks to treat the matter as being one in compensation under Arts. 1091, 1092, 1093, C. P.

But it is of the essence of that, compensation admits the debt and, in this instance, the answer denied it and put plaintiff to the proof thereof.

The Code of Practice under the head “Trials before Justices of the Peace” is silent as to reconventional demands, but, conceding arguendo, that the rules of practice of the dictrict courts on that subject may be applied to the City Courts, the demand must be rejected because the parties reside in the same parish and the incidental demand is not necessarily connected with the main action.

Either reconvention does not exist in City Courts, or it must be exercised in the manner provided for district Courts.

Judgment affirmed.  