Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & Cleveland Railroad v. Brucey
This text of 21 Ind. 215 (Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & Cleveland Railroad v. Brucey) 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.
Opinion
Suit commenced before a justice, to recover the value of two cows, killed by the rolling stock of said company. The complaint averred that the said cows were unlawfully killed, &c., but did not aver negligence, nor that the road was not fenced. There was no objection taken to the complaint before the justice, nor until after trial on appeal.
The evidence is in the record, and shows that the road was not securely fenced. The evidence on that point was objected to as irrelevant to the issue, but admitted. A motion in arrest, for want of sufficient complaint, was overruled. These two rulings, perhaps, properly present the point urged here, namely, that the suit was not properly commenced, under the statute of 1853, in reference to the liability, in the absence of negligence, of roads not fenced.
The real question presented, then, is, whether the complaint, filed before the justice, was sufficient after verdict.
This question has been already passed upon by this Court. The objection that there was a want of jurisdiction, or of a cause of action, may be raised on appeal. The President, &c. Co. v. Smith, 19 Ind. 42.
Per Curiam. — The judgment is reversed, with costs. Cause remanded.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
21 Ind. 215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indianapolis-pittsburgh-cleveland-railroad-v-brucey-ind-1863.