Evansville & Crawfordsville Railroad v. Miller

30 Ind. 209
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1868
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 30 Ind. 209 (Evansville & Crawfordsville Railroad v. Miller) 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
Evansville & Crawfordsville Railroad v. Miller, 30 Ind. 209 (Ind. 1868).

Opinion

Frazer, J.

This was a proceeding to condemn lands to public use, under the ninth section of the act to incorporate the Evansville and Illinois Railroad Company (Local Laws 1849). The appellee took the case to the Circuit Court for review, as provided by that section. The petition to the Circuit Court complained only that inadequate damages had been assessed before the justice of the peace.

A jury trial, to which the appellant objected, and in whicli the appellee' was permitted to 'begin, resulted in an increased assessment of damages, and there was then entered an ordinary judgment against the appellant for the damages assessed.

A jury trial was not a matter of right. According to the act already cited, the Circuit Court proceeds, “ acting and sitting as a court of chancery.” In such cases it is very clear that trial by jury is not a constitutional right. But a court of chancery might take the opinion of a jury upon a single question of fact; and we think, therefore, that [210]*210there was no available error in the proceedings in that particular.

A. Iglehart, for appellant. J. M. Shackleford, for appellee.

Inasmuch as no question but the measure of damages was presented in the Circuit Court, there was no error, we think, in giving the appellee the right to begin. He had the affirmative of the question.

The court rendered a common judgment against the appellant for the damages, without any decree for a conveyance to the appellant upon the payment of the money. This was in violation of the express letter of the act already referred to, and must reverse the judgment.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions to render a decree according to this opinion.

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

Related

Gradison v. State
300 N.E.2d 67 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1973)
Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co.
158 N.E.2d 460 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1959)
Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Wiles
91 N.E. 161 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Shepherd
74 N.E. 904 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Florence, El Dorado & Walnut Valley Railroad v. Lilley
43 P. 857 (Court of Appeals of Kansas, 1896)
Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Huntsinger
40 N.E. 34 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1895)
Conwell v. Tate
8 N.E. 36 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1886)
Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. Cook
26 N.E. 203 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
In re New York, Lackawanna & Western Railroad
40 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 148 (New York Supreme Court, 1884)
Helm v. First National Bank
91 Ind. 44 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
Peed v. Brenneman
89 Ind. 252 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1883)
St. Louis, Lawrence & Denver Railroad v. Wilder
17 Kan. 239 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1876)
Indianapolis & St. Louis Railroad v. Smythe
45 Ind. 322 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Grand Rapids & Indiana Railroad v. Horn
41 Ind. 479 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1873)
Hamlyn v. Nesbit
37 Ind. 284 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
30 Ind. 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evansville-crawfordsville-railroad-v-miller-ind-1868.