Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & Cleveland Railroad v. Petty

25 Ind. 413
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 15, 1865
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 25 Ind. 413 (Indianapolis, Pittsburgh & Cleveland Railroad v. Petty) 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, Pittsburgh & Cleveland Railroad v. Petty, 25 Ind. 413 (Ind. 1865).

Opinion

Ray, J.

Action against the railroad company to recover the value- of cattle killed by the cars of the appellant, the road", .not being securely fenced. Answer, that the land álong-side of the railroad was a pasture field, and that the owner thereof had, for a proper consideration paid by the company, contracted to keep and maintain a fence between his land and the road, and that on his failure to maintain such fence he should have no claim upon said company for injury to his cattle; that the appellee had full notice of the contract, .and of the failure of the owner of the land-to comply with its terms. A demurrer was sustained to the answer. This presents the error assigned for our consideration.

In the case of The Terre Haute and Richmond R. R. Co. v. Smith, 16 Ind., 102, it was held, where by contract the owner of the land was required to maintain the fence, that no recovery could be had by him for an injury to his animals, resulting from his failure to comply with his agreement. That the tenant of the land owner, so bound by contract, or a person whose cattle trespass upon the land, is-in no better position to maintain an action than the proprietor, was decided in The Indianapolis and Cincinnati R. R. Co. v. Adkins, 23 Ind., 340, The Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and Cleveland R. R. Co. v. Shimer, 17 Ind., 295, and The Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton R. R. Co., v. Waterson et al. 4 Ohio St. R., 434. The demurrer to the answer should have been overruled.

The judgment is l’eversed, with costs, and the cause remanded for further proceedings.

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

Related

Buford v. Louisville & N. R. Co.
146 Tenn. 262 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1921)
Ponsler v. Union Traction Co.
132 N.E. 708 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
Bell v. Erie Railroad
183 A.D. 608 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1918)
Embree v. Emerson
74 N.E. 44 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1905)
Brown v. Southern Pacific Co.
47 L.R.A. 409 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1899)
Hunt v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
13 N.E. 263 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1887)
Bond v. Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad
100 Ind. 301 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
Thomas v. Hannibal & St. Joseph Railroad
82 Mo. 538 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1884)
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Skelton
94 Ind. 222 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)
Kansas Pacific Railway Co. v. Peavey
29 Kan. 169 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1883)
Fort Wayne, Muncie, & Cincinnati R. R. v. Mussetter
48 Ind. 286 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Louisville, New Albany, & Chicago Railroad v. Cauble
46 Ind. 277 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1874)
Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis Railroad v. Ross
37 Ind. 545 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1871)
Ells v. Pacific Railroad
48 Mo. 231 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1871)
Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, & Cleveland Railroad v. Petty
30 Ind. 261 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1868)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
25 Ind. 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/indianapolis-pittsburgh-cleveland-railroad-v-petty-ind-1865.