Case Name: SCALF vs. TOMPKINS
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1884-05
Citations: 3 Tex. L. R. 62
Docket Number: 
Parties: SCALF vs. TOMPKINS.
Judges: 
Reporter: Texas Law Reporter
Volume: 3
Pages: 62–63

Head Matter:
SCALF vs. TOMPKINS.
Appeal from Collin county.
Beconvention — Thejokljind the revised .statutes upon the sub ject do not conflict, and it was provided in the old, that the plea in re-convention was valid in^ oases where . the_ (ie.feiulant__has_a_ claim agai n st th e_]dai fit iff. similar in natu re (t hough _tlmy _ ne.ed._no t bq_of the same degree) tojjha^ujopn_whi_ch tkélstñfii'jS.uñiled.
Same — llecovery.-—-The right to recover in such suit does tuff depend upon the money character of the claim sued on.
Sam.e — Pleading—Under our system of jurisprudence, all matters touching the cause of action, which under that law may be pleaded in reconvention, may be alleged in an answer.
Same. — -The plea in recimvention under '7 Tex., 205, and 5 Tex., 506, is not confined to cases wherein, the original .suit was on a moneynd_demand, but may be interposed in any case where the matter pleaded comes within_flie_definitjou in art. 605, Rev, StaL. »
~~~Sáme — Pleading—Practice.-—Second objection to the plea in re-convention was well taken because after discovering the defect in the machinery, the defendant had the right to rescind within a reasonable time, or retain and sue for damages, or recoup them in a suit for purchase money. It appears that while he offered to rescind, at the request of plaintiff he retained the machinery and used it, plaintiff agreeing to pay any damage he might sustain by reason of failure of machinery to perform according to contract. Had this proposition been rejected, action for purchase money would have been sustained. That plaintiff claims exemplary damages is tantamount to prayer therefor^

Opinion:
Reversed and remanded.
Willie, C, J.