Durnall v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Durnall v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.

126 N.E. 81, 73 Ind. App. 220, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 101

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 20, 1920

DocketNo. 10,283

StatusPublished

This text of 126 N.E. 81 (Durnall v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Durnall v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co., 126 N.E. 81, 73 Ind. App. 220, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 101 (Ind. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, J.

This is an action for damages on account of the wrongful death of appellant’s decedent. Appellant filed a v'erified motion for a change of venue from the county, which was overruled. He also filed a verified application for leave to amend his complaint, which was denied. The court directed a verdict for appellee, and entered a judgment in accordance with the verdict. The appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

Appellant’s motion for a change of venue was filed in due time, states facts sufficient to entitle him to such change, and should have been sustained. Appellant should also have been given leave to amend his complaint.

Judgment reversed, with directions to sustain the motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings • not inconsistent with this opinion.

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

McMahan, J.

This is an action for damages on account of the wrongful death of appellant’s decedent. Appellant filed a v'erified motion for a change of venue from the county, which was overruled. He also filed a verified application for leave to amend his complaint, which was denied. The court directed a verdict for appellee, and entered a judgment in accordance with the verdict. The appellant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.

Appellant’s motion for a change of venue was filed in due time, states facts sufficient to entitle him to such change, and should have been sustained. Appellant should also have been given leave to amend his complaint.

Judgment reversed, with directions to sustain the motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings • not inconsistent with this opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 N.E. 81, 73 Ind. App. 220, 1920 Ind. App. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/durnall-v-indianapolis-traction-terminal-co-indctapp-1920.