Bardeen v. Markstrum
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Mwrathon County. The case is stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that, for the purpose of identifying the note and deed and showing what was the consideration of each, the evidence of the defendant should have been admitted. One of his answers which was stricken out was that the land was the consideration for the note. This related in no way to a transaction with the intestate. Stewaid v. Stewart, 41 Wis. 624; Pagev.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Mwrathon County. The case is stated in the opinion. They contended, inter alia, that, for the purpose of identifying the note and deed and showing what was the consideration of each, the evidence of the defendant should have been admitted. One of his answers which was stricken out was that the land was the consideration for the note. This related in no way to a transaction with the intestate. Stewaid v. Stewart, 41 Wis. 624; Pagev. JDcmaher, 43 id. 221; Daniels v. Foster, 26 id. 686; Hier v. Grant, 47 N. Y. 278. The burden of proof was upon the plaintiff to…
1Opinion of the CourtOetoN, J.
This action -was brought to recover on a promissory note for $100, given by the defendant, K S. Markstrum, *615to Elisha Philbrook in his life-time. The answer was a counterclaim that the note was given as part consideration for certain lands conveyed by Philbrook to the defendant •by warranty deed for $200 consideration, $100 paid down, and this note given for the balance thereof, and that Phil-brook had no title to said lands, and that there was a breach of the covenant of seizin; and judgment for $100 against the plaintiff is asked. Testimony of the defendant that said note was given as part…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Taft v. KesselWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Mecklem v. BlakeWisconsin Supreme Court · 1868
- Smith v. HughesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Eaton v. LymanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1872
- Horton v. ArnoldWisconsin Supreme Court · 1864
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Anderson v. OlsonNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1935
- Falkner v. WoodardWisconsin Supreme Court · 1899
- Wenzel v. Conrad Schmitt StudiosWisconsin Supreme Court · 1943
- Austinville Building Corp. v. LurieAppellate Court of Illinois · 1934