Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago Railroad v. Smith

Indiana Supreme Court

Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago Railroad v. Smith

31 N.E. 199, 132 Ind. 600, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 120

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedMay 11, 1892

DocketNo. 15,171

StatusPublished

This text of 31 N.E. 199 (Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago Railroad v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Baltimore & Ohio & Chicago Railroad v. Smith, 31 N.E. 199, 132 Ind. 600, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 120 (Ind. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Olds, J.

— This action is by the appellant against the appellee to enjoin the collection of a tax placed upon the duplicate of Lake county on the property of appellant in Hobart township, as its pro rata share of an appropriation of $10,000 aid voted by the qualiñed^voters of said township to the New York and Chicago Railway Company, or its successors by consolidation, to construct a railroad through said township. The same facts are pleaded both in the complaint and answer, and the same questions are raised, and the same agreement made as in the case of Lake Shore, etc., R. W. Co. v. Smith, ante. p. 512.

Both cases having been fully briefed, raising the identical questions, and having been passed upon in the other case, we affirm this judgment on the decision in that case.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McBride, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Olds, J.

— This action is by the appellant against the appellee to enjoin the collection of a tax placed upon the duplicate of Lake county on the property of appellant in Hobart township, as its pro rata share of an appropriation of $10,000 aid voted by the qualiñed^voters of said township to the New York and Chicago Railway Company, or its successors by consolidation, to construct a railroad through said township. The same facts are pleaded both in the complaint and answer, and the same questions are raised, and the same agreement made as in the case of Lake Shore, etc., R. W. Co. v. Smith, ante. p. 512.

Both cases having been fully briefed, raising the identical questions, and having been passed upon in the other case, we affirm this judgment on the decision in that case.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

McBride, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.E. 199, 132 Ind. 600, 1892 Ind. LEXIS 120, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/baltimore-ohio-chicago-railroad-v-smith-ind-1892.