37 Tex. 171 | Tex. | 1873
The question presented for decision in this case, must he regarded as settled by prior decisions. Deriving our system, in a measure, from the civil law, we have retained many of its peculiar doctrines, especially in our practice and procedure. At common law the defendant had his remedy by set-off and recoupment. We have borrowed from the civil law, following more nearly the practice in the Equity courts, the remedy by way of reconvention, giving a broader scope to matters which may be put in litigation in the same action. By recoupment the defendant could defeat the plaintiff’s action and recover his costs, but by intervention and reconvention he may do much more, and recover, damages against the plaintiff. How far the Legislature intended to limit and control this right by Article 3447, Paschal’s Digest, is somewhat difficult for us to understand. The Article reads thus: “ If the plaint- “ iff’s cause of action be brought on a claim for unliquidated or “ uncertain damages, founded on a tort or breach of covenant, “ the defendant shall not be permitted to set-off or discount a “ debt due him by the plaintiff; and if the suit be founded on “ a certain demand, the defendant shall not be permitted to “ set-off unliquidated or uncertain damages, founded on a tort “ or breach of covenant on the part of the plaintiff.” This is simply the common law doctrine, and, were it not for the previous decisions, we might apply it to the case at bar; for, in this case, the question raised is, can a demand for rent be answered by a plea in damages for a breach of covenant to repair ?
Judge Paschal, in his note to this section of the statute, I believe, very accurately remarks : “ The limit which the decisions “ of this court have assigned to the right to plead in reconven“tion in our practice is, that the matter pleaded, or the “ damages claimed, must have grown out of, or be in some “ way connected with, or incidental to the main action.” This is the doctrine of Carothers v. Thorp, 21 Texas, and Duncan v. Magette, 25 Texas, 251. In the case of Castro v. Gentilly, 11 Texas, 28, the previous cases are cited and reviewed. It
Reversed and remanded.