Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette Railroad v. Ray

Indiana Supreme Court

Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette Railroad v. Ray

51 Ind. 269

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1875

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 Ind. 269 (Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette Railroad v. Ray) 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

Indianapolis, Cincinnati & Lafayette Railroad v. Ray, 51 Ind. 269 (Ind. 1875).

Pincite

Opinion

Biddle, C. J.

Suit by Ray, under the act of March 4th, 1863 (3 Ind. Stat. 413), against the railroad company for killing his horse. Trial, and verdict for appellee. Appeal.

During the trial, the appellant offered to prove to the jury by a witness (Odell), “ that at the time the plaintiff’s horse was killed, the said road was not in the possession, or in any manner under her control; that she did not employ, pay, nor in any manner control the hands or servants, or agents engaged on the road in the running of trains, repairing road, or in any capacity connected with the road; that the servants who committed the injury to the plaintiff’s horse, and who worked upon the road and repaired fences, were not the servants of the company, or under her control; but that the railroad of the defendant, with all its appurtenances, was, and had been, since October, 1870, in the exclusive possession, use and control of Morris E. Ingalls and Thomas A. Morris, as receivers in bankruptcy, duly appointed by the District Court of the United States for the district of the State of Indiana — the defendant having been adjudged a bankrupt upon the petition of creditors.”

To this evidence the appellee objected, and the objection was sustained by the court. The same question was also raised by an instruction asked and refused.

There is no error in these rulings. The act under which the appellee sues provides that in such cases the suit may be brought against the railroad as defendant, whether the road is run by the company, a lessee, assignee or receiver. Sections 2 and 4. And so are the decisions of this court. The Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Fitch. 20 Ind. 498; McKinney v. [271]*271The Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co., 22 Ind. 99; The Ft. Wayne, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hinebaugh, 43 Ind. 354; The Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cauble, 46 Ind. 277.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and ten per cent, damages.

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

Biddle, C. J.

Suit by Ray, under the act of March 4th, 1863 (3 Ind. Stat. 413), against the railroad company for killing his horse. Trial, and verdict for appellee. Appeal.

During the trial, the appellant offered to prove to the jury by a witness (Odell), “ that at the time the plaintiff’s horse was killed, the said road was not in the possession, or in any manner under her control; that she did not employ, pay, nor in any manner control the hands or servants, or agents engaged on the road in the running of trains, repairing road, or in any capacity connected with the road; that the servants who committed the injury to the plaintiff’s horse, and who worked upon the road and repaired fences, were not the servants of the company, or under her control; but that the railroad of the defendant, with all its appurtenances, was, and had been, since October, 1870, in the exclusive possession, use and control of Morris E. Ingalls and Thomas A. Morris, as receivers in bankruptcy, duly appointed by the District Court of the United States for the district of the State of Indiana — the defendant having been adjudged a bankrupt upon the petition of creditors.”

To this evidence the appellee objected, and the objection was sustained by the court. The same question was also raised by an instruction asked and refused.

There is no error in these rulings. The act under which the appellee sues provides that in such cases the suit may be brought against the railroad as defendant, whether the road is run by the company, a lessee, assignee or receiver. Sections 2 and 4. And so are the decisions of this court. The Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co. v. Fitch. 20 Ind. 498; McKinney v. [271]*271The Ohio & Miss. R. R. Co., 22 Ind. 99; The Ft. Wayne, etc., R. R. Co. v. Hinebaugh, 43 Ind. 354; The Louisville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Cauble, 46 Ind. 277.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs and ten per cent, damages.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 Ind. 269, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indianapolis-cincinnati-lafayette-railroad-v-ray-ind-1875.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack