City of Portland v. Taylor

25 N.E. 459, 125 Ind. 522, 1890 Ind. LEXIS 482
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 29, 1890
DocketNo 14,547
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 25 N.E. 459 (City of Portland v. Taylor) 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
City of Portland v. Taylor, 25 N.E. 459, 125 Ind. 522, 1890 Ind. LEXIS 482 (Ind. 1890).

Opinion

Mitchell, J.

— Eva Taylor and her husband brought suit against the city of Portland to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff, Eva Taylor, on account of the neglect of the city in permitting a sidewalk within the corporate limits to be in a dangerous condition.

It is alleged that the sidewalks along a particular street were twelve feet in width, and that the city had constructed a portion of the walk over a ditch, in an alley, only three feet wide, leaving it without any protection at the sides, or any lights or danger signals, so that the plaintiff in passing along the sidewalk, without knowledge of the situation, or condition of the walk at the alley, stepped off into the ditch, thereby sustaining the injuries complained of, without any [523]*523fault on her part. The facts stated in the complaint constitute a good cause of action against, the city for negligence.

Filed Oct. 29, 1890.

There was no error in permitting Charles S. Taylor, the husband, to be dismissed out of the case. He was not a necessary party, and it was wholly immaterial what the purpose was in dismissing him from the case. He had no interest in the action. Ohio, etc., R. W. Co. v. Cosby, 107 Ind. 32.

Dismissing the husband from the case in nowise affected the wife’s right to proceed with the action, and it is, therefore, plain that the motion to dismiss, insisted upon by the city, was properly overruled.

The evidence fairly sustains the finding of the court. The court committed no error in excluding an extract from a newspaper, offered in evidence. It is difficult to conceive what relevancy the evidence offered had to any issue, or inquiry before the court.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, with 10 per cent, damages.

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

Related

City of Vincennes v. Spees
74 N.E. 277 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 N.E. 459, 125 Ind. 522, 1890 Ind. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-portland-v-taylor-ind-1890.