Case Name: Timmons v. Dunn
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1855-12
Citations: 4 Ohio St. 680
Docket Number: 
Parties: *Timmons v. Dunn.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 4
Pages: 680, 681–684

Head Matter:
*Timmons v. Dunn.
In an action brought for the purchase price of personal property, it is competent for the defendant, upon giving notice of his intention to do so, to recoup against the plaintiff's claim any damages he may have sustained by fraud in the sale or breach of warranty.
Such a proceeding is in the nature of a cross-action, and governed by the same principles.
When the controversy is between the original parties to the contract, it mates no difference that a note or bond was given for the purchase price.
If the defendant elects to present his claim in this form, a decision for or against him is a bar to another action.
Error to the common pleas of Boss county, reserved in the district court.
The original action was one before Isaac Fleming, a justice of the peace, founded upon breach of warranty in the sale of a horse. The defendant in error was plaintiff, and the justice gave judgment for defendant, whereupon defendant in error appealed and filed his declaration in the common pleas in assumpsit. Plaintiff in error plead the general issue and filed notice that he would offer evidence of the prior adjudication of the matter in issue, before William Mick, a justice of the peace, as a bar. The court rejected the testimony, which tended to prove that, upon the trial of the action before Mick, which was to recover upon a note given for part of the purchase money of the horse, defendant in error had set up a claim to recoup the damages, by reason of the alleged breach of warranty. Mick decided against the claim of defendant in error to recoup, being of opinion that there had been no breach of warranty, and rendered judgment for plaintiff in error. Upon the trial in the common pleas of the appeal from Fleming’s decision, the court rejected the testimony as to the former trial and the adjudications of Mick, and the ^plaintiff in error excepted. This writ was issued to the common pleas and made returnable to the district court, where the case was reserved for decision here.
Milton L. Clark, for plaintiff in exrror, cited:
1 Greenl. on Ev., secs. 529-531; 20 Ohio, 344; Basten v. Butler, 7 East, 479, 481; Lewis v. Cosgrave, 2 Taunt. 2; Farns worth v. Ganard, 1 Camp. 38; Fisher v. Samuda et al., 1 Ib. 190; Poulton v. Lattimore, 17 E. C. L. 373; Street v. Blay, 22 Ib. 122; 2 Starkie on Ev., 645, 646; Lowe v. Tucker, 19 E. C. L. 225; Jones v. Scriver, 8 Johns. 453; Beeker & Beeker v. Vrooman, 13 Ib. 230; Burton v. Stewart, 2 Wend. 236; McAllister v. Reab, 4 Ib. 484; S. C., 8 Ib. 109; Spalding v. Vandercook, 2 Ib. 431; Gleason & Viele v. Clark’s Adm’r, 9 Cow. 57; Blanchard v. Ely, 21 Wend. 342; Cook v. Mosely, Ib. 277; Still v. Hall, 29 Ib. 51; Ives v. Van Epps, 22 Ib. 155; Westlake v. Degraw, 25 Ib. 669; Batterman v. Pierce, 3 Hill, 171; The Mayor of Albany v. Trowbridge, 5 lb. 71; Barber v. Rose, Ib. 76; Whitbeck v. Skinner, 7 Ib. 53; Judd v. Dennison, 10 Wend. 512; Van Epps v. Harrison, 5 Hill, 63; Tone v. Brace, 8 Page, 597; Britton v. Turner, 6 N. H. 481; Miller v. Smith, 1 Mason, 437; 1 Pet. C. C. 221; Dodge v. Tilerton, 12 Pick. 328; Harrington v. Stratton, 23 lb. 510; Hunt v. The Otis Company, 4 Met. 464; Christy v. Reynolds, 16 Serg. & Rawle, 258; Todd v. Gallagher, Ib. 261; Steigleman v. Jeffries, 1 Ib. 477; 2 Kent’s Com. 474; Culver v. Blake, 6 B. Mon.; Moore v. Nestbit, 3 Hill's S. C.; Swan’s Treat, (ed. 1841) 440, ed. 1854, 602; Hare & Wallace’s Note to Cutler v. Powell, 2 Smith’s L. C. 45 (ed. 1852); Hatchett & Brothers. Gibson, 13 Ala.; Sedgwick on Damages, 456; McAlpin v. Lee, 12 Conn. 129; Harlan v. Reed, 3 Ohio, 285 ; 2 East, 446; House v. Ford, 4 Black. 293; Williams v. Harris, 2 How. Miss. 627; Supmt. U. S. D., secs. 297, 312.
*Alfred Yaple, for defendant, cited:
1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 524; Starkie Ev. 214, 215; Comyn on Cont. 37, 38; 3 Wend. 236; 13 Johns. 56 ; 16 Ohio, 504; 4 Viner’s Abr. 533; McAllister v. Reab, 8 Wend. 109; Harlan v. Reed, 3 Ohio, 285; State v. Collins, 6 Ib. 126; Poulton v. Lattimore, 17 E. C. L. 373; 9 B. & C. 259; 4 Man. & Ry. 208; Baston v. King, cited 7 East, 480; Street v. Blay, 22 E. C. L. 122; 2 B. & Ad. 464; DeLewhanberg v. Buchanan, 24 E. C. L. 352; Fisher v. Samuda, 1 Camp. 190; Cormack v. Gillis, cited 7 East, 480; Tye v. Gwynne, 2 Camp. 346; Morgan v. Richardson, 1 Ib. 40; Obbard v, Betham, M. & M. 483; Archer v. Bamford, 3 Stark. 175; Spiller v. Westlake, 2 B. & Ad. 155 ; Day v. Nix, 9 Moore, 159; Solomon v. Turner, 1 Stark. 51; Jones v. Bright, 5 Bing. 33; Chitty on Contracts, 464; Reab v. McAllister, 8 Wend. 109; Frisbee v. Hoffnagle, 11 Johns. 50; Beeker v. Vrooman, 13 lb. 302; Spalding v. Vandercook, 2 Wend, 431; Burton v. Stewart, 3 lb. 236; 3 Ohio, 285; State v. Collins, 6 lb. 126; Kinnear v. Thomas, 4 West. Law Jour. 187 ; Pulsifer v. Hotchkins, 12 Conn. 234; Thornton v. Wynne, 12 Wheat. 183; Harlan v. Reed, 3 Ohio, 285 (Ham. Revised); State v. Collins, 6 Ohio, 144; 16 lb. 504; Scudder v. Andrews, 2 McLean, 464; 3 Dev. 396; 2 A. R. Marshall, 545; Bain v. Wilson, 1 J. J. Wilson, 282; 7 Cranch, 565.

Opinion:
Ranney, J.
This case, involving questions of very considerable interest and importance when it was tried, has become comparatively unimportant by a decision of this court made since it was reserved, and by the adoption of the code of civil procedure. The case of the Steamboat Wellsville v. Geisse, 3 Ohio St. 333, has settled, for all eases pending when the code took effect, that the doctrine of recoupment is a part of the law of this state, and a form of remedy to be administered by its courts; while the code itself has confessedly provided for the same thing in the fixture, under the foiun of a counter-claim. It may be readily ^admitted that this doctrine, in its present completeness, had a very impeidect foothold in the early and technical period of the common law; nor is it at all surprising that it should have been adopted by degrees, and with much hesitation; or even that it should not now be universally recognized. But, if it has made its way to favor slowly, it has nevertheless done so surely; and there is no hazard now in affinning that, with very inconsiderable exceptions, it has become fully naturalized in the courts of England and the United States.
A moment's attention to the principles upon which it is founded, will sufficiently indicate its limits and proper application. It is no defense to the action, but only affects the amount to be recovered by the plaintiff. It consists simply in allowing the defendant, who upon his part has a right of action against the plaintiff, growing out of the same transaction, by giving notice of his intention to do so, to settle his rights in the same suit, and to deduct so much from the plaintiff's claim as he would bo entitled to recover if he brought a cross-action. As stated by Bronson, J., in a late case : " It is a matter which is never pleaded in bar. It is in the nature of a cross-action. The right of the plaintiff to sue is admitted; but the defendant says he has been injured by the breach of another branch of the saxne contract on which the action is founded, axxd claims to stop, cut off, or keep back so raxxch of the plaintiff's damages as will satisfy the damages which have been sustained by the defendant." Nichols v. Dusenbury, 2 Comst. 286. It properly applies in actions brought for the purchase price of property, where the defendant claims fraud or warranty. In such case, if the plaintiff was permitted to recover the whole amount stipulated, the defendant might bring his action and recover back to the extent of his injury. No earthly reason can be given why such a controversy should be divided into two suits, instead of being settled in one. On the contrary, individual justice and public policy unite in requiring a definitive settlement at the earliest moment that the rights of the parties can be properly investigated. It ^involves no examination of separate transactions, and the court and jury employed to settle the rights of the plaintiff, are as competent as any other can be to settle those of the defendant. As the whole consists in deducting from the stipulated price of the property the amount for which the plaintiff is liable for his fraud or warranty, and as the groat object is, in this manner, to avoid circuity of action and needless litigation, it is evident that it can make no possible difference how the contract is evidenced. Whenever the action is brought for the price of the property, and is between the original parties to the contract, it is the absolute right of the defendant to have the amouht of his damages deducted from that price, instead of being put to a sej>arate action; and when he elects to litigate his rights in this form, he is as fully barred by a decision for or against him, as though he had prosecuted an independent action for the recovery of his damages.
We see nothing in this case to take it out of the operation of these principles; and we are therefore of opinion, that Justice Mick was fully competent to have allowed Dunn all the damages to which ho showed himself entitled, in the action prosecuted before him for the price of the horse; and that the court of common pleas erred in rejecting the evidence offered, to show that it was so litigated, and that the adjudication was a bar to the action afterward brought.
The judgment must be reversed, and the cause remanded.