Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Village of Milan
District Court, N.D. Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
MERCER, Chief Judge.
Plaintiff, Hartford, filed its complaint against defendant, Village of Milan, claiming a sum of money allegedly due to plaintiff from defendant. Defendant filed a disjointed document which it entitled as an answer and counterclaim, a principal feature of which is thirteen single paragraphs, each of which is designated as a separate affirmative defense. It is logically debatable whether defendant, in its efforts, actually answered the complaint filed but for present purposes the court will assume that it has done so.
The cause is now before the court for decision of two…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Portuguese-American Bank of San Francisco v. WellesSupreme Court of the United States · 1916
- Mueller v. Northwestern UniversityIllinois Supreme Court · 1902
- State Street Furniture Co. v. Armour & Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1931
- Hibernian Banking Ass'n v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Suburban Propane v. Estate of PitcherDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1990
- Cooper v. HolderUtah Supreme Court · 1968