A record; a judicial record. It is used in the phrase prout patet per recordum, which is a formula em- ployed, in pleading, for reference to a record, signifying as it appears from the record. 1 Chit. Pl. 385; 10 Me. 127. RECOUPMENT (Fr. recouper, to cut again). The act of abating or recouping a part of a claim upon which one is sued by reason of a legal or equitable right result- ing from a counter-claim arising out of the same transaction. The right of the de- fendant, in the same action, to claim dam- ages from the plaintiff, either because he has not complied with some cross obligation of the contract upon which he sues, or be- cause he has violated some duty which the law imposed upon him in the making or performance of that contract. 4 Wend. 483; 22 id. 155; 10 Barb. 55; 13 N. Y. 151; 3 Ind. 72, 265; 9 id. 470; 7 Ala. N. S. 753; 27 id. 574; 12 Ark. 699; 17 id. 270; 6 Β. Monr. 528; 15 id. 454; 8 Mich. 281; 39 Me. 382; 16 111. 495; 11 Mo. 415; 25 id. 430; 83 Ga. 212. Recoupment is the right to set off un- liquidated damages, while the right of set- off, as distinguished from recoupment, comprehends only liquidated demands, or those capable of being ascertained by cal- culation; 32 N. J. Eq. 225. Both these terms have a technical meaning and both are included in the same general term, counter-claim, which see. This is not a new title in the law, the term occur ring from the 14th to the 16th centuries, although it seems of late years to have assumed a new signifi- cation, and the present doctrine is said to be still in its infancy; 7 Am. L. Rev. 389. Originally it im- plied a mere deduction from the claim of the plain- tiff, on account of payment in whole or in part, or a former recovery, or some analogous fact; 8 Co. 65; 4 id. 94; 5 id. 2, 81; 11 id. 51. 52. See note to Icily v. Grew, 6 Nev. & M. 407; Viner, Abr. Discount, pl. 8, 4, 9, 10; 28 Vt. 413. This meaning has been retained in many modern cases, but under the name of de- duction or reduction of damages; 11 East 232; 1 Maule & S. 318. 323; 2 M. & G. 241; 7 M. & W. 314; 12 id. 772: 20 Conn. 204; 21 Wend. 610: 3 Dana 489; 14 Pick. 356. The word recoupment has also been applied to cases very similar to the above: 4 Den. 227 20 Wend. 207. See 7 Am. L. Rev. 369, where recoupment is fully treated. Recoupment as now understood seems to corre soond with the Reconvention of the civil law, some- times termed demands incidentes by the French writers, in which the reus, or defendant, was per- mitted to exhibit his claim against the plaintiff for allowance, provided it rose out of, or was incidental to. the plaintiff's cause of action, Œuvres de Po- thier, vol. 9. p. 39; 1 White. New Rec. 285; Voet, tit. de Judiciis, n. 78; La. Code Pr. art. 375: 4 Mart. N. 8. 489; 5 id; 671; 12 La. Ann. 114, 170; 6 Тех. 406. In England, as well as in some of the United States, the principles of recoupement as defined above have been recognized only in a restricted form. Under the name of reduction of damages, the defendant is al- lowed to show all such violations of his contract by the plaintiff as go to render the consideration less valuable, but he is compelled to resort to an independent ac- tion for any immediate or consequential damages affecting him in other respects: 8 M. & W. 858; 3 Campb. 450; 1 C. & P. 384; 6 Barb. 387; 6 B. Monr. 528; 12 Conn. 129; 11 Johns. 547; 12 Pick. 330; 8 Humphr. 678; 9 How. 231. See 84 Ala. 496; 65 Miss. 315. But these restrictions are all gradu- ally disappearing, and the law is assuming the form expressed in the cases cited under the definition of modern recoupment, the main reason upon which the doctrine now rests being the avoidance of circuity of ac- tion. In Pennsylvania a defendant may avail himself, by way of recoupment or equi- table defence, of a breach of warranty or of a fraudulent representation, and show that the goods sold were worth less than they would have been if they were such as they were wrranted or represented to be; 120 U. S. 648. There are some limitations and qualifica- tions to the law of recoupment, as thus established. Thus, it has been held that the defendant is not entitled to any judg- ment for the excess his damages in re- coupment may have over the plaintiff's claim, nor shall he be allowed to bring an independent action for that excess; 6 N. H. 481; 14 Ill. 424; 3 Mich. 281; 12 Ala. N. S. 643; 3 Hill N. Y. 171; 17 Ark. 270. See 83 Ala. 333. If recoupment is put upon the ground of a cross-action and not a mere defence for the reduction of damages, there is no reason why he should not have judg- ment to the extent of his injury. Such seems to be the practice in Louisiana, un- der the name of reconvention; 12 La. Ann. 170; and such will probably be the practico under those systems of pleading which au- thorize the court, in any action which re- quires it, to grant the defendant affirmative relief; 2 E. D. Sm. 317. See, also, 3 W. & S. 472; 17 S. & R. 385; 12 How. Pr. 310. The damages recouped must be for a br