Boring v. Chicago & Erie Railroad

Indiana Supreme Court

Boring v. Chicago & Erie Railroad

113 N.E. 294, 185 Ind. 46, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 11

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedJune 7, 1916

DocketNo. 22,949

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 N.E. 294 (Boring v. Chicago & Erie Railroad) 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

Boring v. Chicago & Erie Railroad, 113 N.E. 294, 185 Ind. 46, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 11 (Ind. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Spencer, J.

— The sole question presented by this appeal arises. out of the action of the trial court [47]*47in sustaining a demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint, which charges appellee with negligence in its treatment of appellant’s decedent immediately after his injury in appellee’s service. The case has been carefully briefed by counsel for appellant, but the appellee has made no effort, prior to the distribution of the cause for final determination, to file any brief in support of the judgment of the trial court. We have frequently held that such an omission may be taken to be a confession of the errors complained of, and we are constrained here to apply that rule.

Judgment reversed.

Note. — Reported in 113 N. E. 294. See 3 C. J. 1446; 2 Cyc 1024; Ann. Cas. 1914A 485.

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

Spencer, J.

— The sole question presented by this appeal arises. out of the action of the trial court [47]*47in sustaining a demurrer to appellant’s amended complaint, which charges appellee with negligence in its treatment of appellant’s decedent immediately after his injury in appellee’s service. The case has been carefully briefed by counsel for appellant, but the appellee has made no effort, prior to the distribution of the cause for final determination, to file any brief in support of the judgment of the trial court. We have frequently held that such an omission may be taken to be a confession of the errors complained of, and we are constrained here to apply that rule.

Judgment reversed.

Note. — Reported in 113 N. E. 294. See 3 C. J. 1446; 2 Cyc 1024; Ann. Cas. 1914A 485.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.E. 294, 185 Ind. 46, 1916 Ind. LEXIS 11, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boring-v-chicago-erie-railroad-ind-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack