actual judicial and law-enforcement, state action nature. See generally Michael E. Tigar, Comment, Automatic Extinction of Cross-demands: Compensatio From Rome to California, 53 Calif.L.Rev. 224 (1965) (tracing the history of setoff to early Roman law) (hereinafter referenced as Tigar, Comment, Automatic Extinction). See also Bandy v. First State Bank, Overton, Texas, 835 S.W.2d 609, 618 (Tex.1992) (citing Tigar, Comment, Automatic Extinction, and specifically recognizing that the doctrine of setoff as known in this country is rooted in early bankruptcy law in England, as a matter of claims and counterclaims in lawsziits, and that the early law of setoff in this country faithfully traced this lawsuit lineage); Sullivan v. Merchants’ Nat’l Bank, 108 Conn. 497, 144 A. 34 (1928) (<HOLDING>). In performing the self-help, involuntary
recognizing that the purpose of the setoff doctrine is to prevent circuity of judicial actions recognizing doctrine recognizing that the alter ego doctrine is an equitable doctrine which should be used to prevent inequitable results recognizing that the doctrine of judicial estoppel  is applied to the calculated assertion of divergent sworn positions the doctrine is designed to prevent parties from making a mockery of justice by inconsistent pleadings  recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine