This  is  not  an  express  requirement  of  the  statute.  It  has  come
about  by  construction.  It  is  not  a  universal  holding,  nor  where
held  is  the  principle  uniformly  applied.  See  Abbot's  Civ.  Jur.
Tr.  (3d  Ed.)  119;  Pomeroy,  Code  Remedies  (4th  Ed.)  §  598;
Bliss,  Code  PI.  §§  342-344;  Phillips,  Code  PI.  §§  261-266;  2
Estee  PI.  §  3381;  1  Enc.  PI.  &  Pr.  852-860;  note,  48  L.  R.  A.
177,  16  Dec.  Dig.  PI.  §  93 ;  39  Cent.  Dig.  PL  §  189.  The  objec-
tion upon  the  ground  of  inconsistency  is  not  favored.  Rees  v.
Storms,  101  Minn.  381,  112  N.  W.  419.  The  purpose  of  the
code  system  of  pleading  is  to  get  the  parties  to  a  speedj^  trial
upon  the  merits.  It  is  not  to  prevent  the  hearing  of  a  cause
of  action  or  the  interposition  of  a  defense.  "We  are  not  so  much
concerned  with  the  development  of  an  artistic  and  symmetrical
system  of  pleading  as  we  are  with  having  a  practical  procedure
which  will  result  in  a  speedy  determination  of  disputes  upon  the
facts.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  whether  both  defenses  can  be
true  is  the  test  of  their  consistency.  An  examination  of  the
cases  shows  that  whatever  the  test,  defenses  are  not  often  held
inconsistent.  Thus  it  is  held  not  inconsistent  to  deny  a  slander
and  allege  matter  in  mitigation.  Warner  v.  Lockerby,  31  Minn.
421,  18  N.  W.  145,  821.  Or  to  deny  the  rendition  of  ser^dces  by
the  plaintiff  and  allege  payment.  Steenerson  v.  Waterbury,  52
Minn.  211,  53  N.  W.  1146.  Or  to  deny  the  execution  of  a  note
and  allege  that  it  was  procured  by  fraud.  Bank  of  Gleneoe  v.
