did not sue Keeley & Associates, Inc. I do not doubt the majority’s suggestion that the trial court probably would have granted a motion to consolidate this action with Integrity’s action. But no rule of law required Keeley & Associates, Inc., to file suit or risk losing its claim. The effect of the majority’s expansion of the rule of claim preclusion embodied in Civ.R. 13(A) to bind nonparties essentially creates a procedural rule of “compulsory intervention.” Such a rule is not contemplated by the Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure and contravenes Civ.R. 13 and possibly Civ.R. 24. “[I]t appears that the traditional view is that a defendant may counterclaim only in the capacity in which he has been sued.” Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Chase Manhattan Bank (C.A.2, 1981), 658 F.2d 875, 886 (<HOLDING>). Following this rule, the court in Durham v.
holding trustee has not waived the right to bring a preference objection holding that a chapter 7 trustee was the only person with authority to bring  a cause of action after the appointment of a trustee holding that bank could not bring counterclaim in its capacity as trustee holding that the trustee alone has the capacity to sue and be sued  holding that a judgment in a suit in which a trustee was acting individually would not bind him acting in his capacity as trustee