LeSlie v. Keepers
| Decision Date | 01 February 1887 |
| Citation | 31 N.W. 486,68 Wis. 123 |
| Parties | LESLIE v. KEEPERS AND ANOTHER, IMPLEADED, ETC. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Chippewa county.
The complaint alleges, in effect, that July 1, 1882, the defendants, Keepers & Riddell, entered into a contract with the defendant county to furnish the materials, and to erect, build, and construct for the county a certain wood and iron bridge, together with the substructure therefor, over the Yellow river, in said county, all of which was performed by them according to such contract; that, shortly after the making of said contract, and on July 1, 1882, the plaintiff entered into a parol agreement with Keepers & Riddell whereby he was, in effect, employed as subcontractor to furnish and provide the necessary building materials for, and to erect and construct, the said substructure of said bridge, and did, between July 6, 1882, and March 8, 1883, for which he was to receive $5,200, but had received only $4,041.68; and other facts essential to recover the balance, and to make the same a lien upon the bridge. The county made no answer. Keepers & Riddell answered to the effect that March 29, 1883, they and the plaintiff accounted together, and fully adjusted and settled all the matters mentioned in the complaint, and that upon such settlement they were to pay the plaintiff $736.25, of which $300 was paid down, and the other $436.25 was to be paid as soon as the plaintiff should take up all outstanding liens and claims covered by his contract upon the bridge, which last-named sum had been garnished in a suit against the plaintiff. At the close of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and against Keepers & Riddell, for $843.11, of which $128.20 was for interest, and the balance for what remained unpaid and not garnished. From the judgment entered upon that verdict, the defendants, Keepers & Riddell, bring this appeal.E. S. Thompson and Stafford & Connor, for respondent.
Marshall & Jenkins, for appellants.
The alleged settlement was in writing, and purported to be for the sum of $736.25, in full settlement for material and labor furnished by the plaintiff for the substructure of the bridge; the above amount being the full contract price for said substructure, less the amount paid him, and for his account on the work. The principal contention of Keepers & Riddell is that such settlement was conclusive between the parties, and that, as the complaint failed to allege any mistake or fraud in making the settlement, it was error to allow it to be impeached upon the trial. There was evidence upon the part of the plaintiff in effect tending to prove that the plaintiff went to the office of Keepers & Riddell, in Milwaukee, about the time of the alleged settlement, and requested a settlement with them; that he did not then know how much he had received from them, nor how much they had paid out on his account; that they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cont'l Nat. Bank of Chi. v. McGeoch
...was deemed controverted by the plaintiff, as upon a direct denial or avoidance, as the case might require. Section 2667; Leslie v. Keepers, 68 Wis. 123, 31 N. W. 486. The result was that, upon the trial, the plaintiff sought to avoid such discharge by claiming that its signature to the comp......
-
Atlanta & Walworth Butter & Cheese Ass'n v. Smith
...Bates v. Simmons, 62 Wis. 69, 22 N. W. 335;First Nat. Bank of Stevens Point v. Knowles, 67 Wis 373, 28 N. W. 225;Leslie v. Keepers, 68 Wis. 123, 31 N. W. 486. In the last case cited an accord and satisfaction, in form, pleaded as matter of defense to an action on the original claim, was met......
-
Jackowski v. Ill. Steel Co.
...an accord and satisfaction. Bussian v. Railway Co., 56 Wis. 325, 14 N. W. 452;Voell v. Kelley, 64 Wis. 504, 25 N. W. 536;Leslie v. Keepers, 68 Wis. 123, 31 N. W. 486;Lusted v. Railway Co., 71 Wis. 391, 36 N. W. 857;Ball v. McGeoch, 81 Wis. 160, 51 N. W. 443;Sheanon v. Insurance Co., 83 Wis.......
-
Bowe v. Gage
...on the ground of fraud, the decisions of this court leave little doubt, especially when set up by way of defense. Leslie v. Keepers, 68 Wis. 123, 31 N. W. 486;Davis & Rankin Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Riverside Butter & Cheese Co., 84 Wis. 262, 268, 54 N. W. 506;Friend Bros. v. Hulbert, 98 Wis. 18......