South Milwaukee Boulevard Heights Co. v. Harte
Wisconsin Supreme Court
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit .court for Jefferson county: John ]R. Bennett, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover the second instalment upon a land contract.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the circuit .court for Jefferson county: John ]R. Bennett, Circuit Judge. This is an action to recover the second instalment upon a land contract. On the 12th day of December, 1892, the plaintiif company entered into a written contract with the ■defendant to sell him a certain lot of land in the village of South Milwaukee for the sum of $375, to be paid in four equal annual instalments; the first instalment to be paid at the date of the contract, and others annually thereafter, with interest on the deferred payments. The defendant made the first payment of $93.75 at…
1Opinion of the CourtWinslow, J.
1. The appellant’s first contention is that, the second counterclaim is inconsistent with the defense and with the first counterclaim, and that the demurrers to the-*595defense and the first counterclaim should have been sustained, and no evidence received under them, on account of such inconsistency. This contention must fail. It is well settled that the defendant may plead as many defenses and counterclaims as he has, although they may be based on inconsistent legal theories. R. S. sec. 2657; Bruce v. Burr, 67 N. Y. 237; Pomeroy, Code Rem. (3d ed.), § 722, and authorities cited in note;…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Bruce v. . BurrNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Hartwell v. PageWisconsin Supreme Court · 1861
3Cited by9 opinions
- J. H. Clark Co. v. RiceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
- Kersten v. WeichmanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1908
- Gerbig v. BellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1910
- Clifford v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1900
- Davis v. SchmidtWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.