counterclaim sought a determination that CDB had breached the agreements. See Latham v. Allison, 560 S.W.2d 481, 485 (Tex.Civ.App. — Fort Worth 1977, writ refd n.r.e.) (defining counterclaim as “a claim, which, if established will defeat or in some way qualify a judgment to which the plaintiff is otherwise entitled. It embraces both setoff and recoupment, and also comprehends recon-vention as well as all adversary actions by the defendant in a case.”); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 315 (5th ed.1979) (defining counterclaim as a “claim presented by a defendant in opposition to or deduction from the plaintiffs claim”). Accordingly, the trial court did not err in overruling CDB’s motion for JNOV. See generally Hobbs Trailers v. J.T. Arnett Grain Co., Inc., 560 S.W.2d 85, 88 (Tex.1977) -(<HOLDING>); Barraza v. Koliba, 933 S.W.2d 164, 167-68
holding that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues at the time of the breach holding that trial court erred by dismissing breach of contract claim because appellee made promises to perform specific acts in contract the breach of which would give rise to a breach of contract action holding that if appellees breach of contract action had been asserted in a counterclaim or crossclaim article 5539c the predecessor to section 16069 would have applied recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract recognizing that breach of contract cause of action accrues at time of the breach