Columbus & Indianapolis Central Railway Co. v. Farrell

31 Ind. 408
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1869
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 31 Ind. 408 (Columbus & Indianapolis Central Railway Co. v. Farrell) 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
Columbus & Indianapolis Central Railway Co. v. Farrell, 31 Ind. 408 (Ind. 1869).

Opinion

Frazer, J.

We cannot'reverse this judgment upon the evidence, as wo are earnestly pressed to do. As it appears upon paper it creates a decided impression that the verdict was wrong. But that depends upon the credit due to the witnesses; and it may be if they had been examined in our personal presence as they wore before the jury which found the verdict and the judge who overruled the motion for a new trial, that we would have thought otherwise. There are tests of truth in testimony impossible to be put into a bill of exceptions; and it is therefore wise that where the question is one of credibility only, the action of the lower court should stand.

The instruction to the jury, to the effect that the railroad company was legally responsible for the action of persons not its servants, in falsely announcing the arrival of the train at the station, whereby the plaintiff in attempting to disembark was injured, was not, in our judgment, a correct statement of the law. But this error was clearly harmless. The jury found, in answer to an interrogatory, that the announcement was, in fact, made by the proper servants of the defendant.

Wo think that the complaint was good.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Ft. Worth & D. C. Ry. Co. v. Taylor
162 S.W. 967 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1913)
Dallas v. Illinois Central Railroad
139 S.W. 958 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1911)
Wolf v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.
111 N.W. 514 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1907)
Smitson v. Southern Pacific Co.
60 P. 907 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1900)
Pittsburg, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Martin
2 Ohio N.P. 353 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1895)
Hooks v. Alabama & Vicksburg Railway Co.
73 Miss. 145 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1895)
Railway Co. v. Johnson
26 S.W. 593 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1894)
Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad v. Athon
33 N.E. 469 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
Chicago & Alton Railroad v. Arnol
19 L.R.A. 313 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1893)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Wood
14 N.E. 572 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Texas & St. Louis Railway v. Orr
46 Ark. 182 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1885)
Texas & P. R'y Co. v. Garcia
62 Tex. 285 (Texas Supreme Court, 1884)
Terre Haute & Indianapolis Railroad v. Buck
96 Ind. 346 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Cincinnati, Wabash & Michigan Railroad v. Peters
80 Ind. 168 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1881)
Stewart v. International & G. N. R. R. Co.
53 Tex. 289 (Texas Supreme Court, 1880)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 Ind. 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbus-indianapolis-central-railway-co-v-farrell-ind-1869.