Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Davis

94 Ind. 601, 1884 Ind. LEXIS 122
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 8, 1884
DocketNo. 11,123
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 94 Ind. 601 (Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Davis) 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
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Davis, 94 Ind. 601, 1884 Ind. LEXIS 122 (Ind. 1884).

Opinion

Hammond, J.

Complaint in three paragraphs, by the appellee against the appellant, to recover damages for stock alleged to have been killed on the appellant’s railroad by its locomotives and cars.

Demurrer to first and second paragraphs of complaint overruled ; answer by general denial; trial by jury; verdict for appellee on first, paragraph of the complaint for $150, and for appellant on second and third paragraphs of the complaint; appellant’s motion for new trial overruled, and judgment on the verdict. Exceptions were taken to the several rulings, and the same are assigned for error.

The first paragraph of the complaint alleged the killing of the appellee’s mare at a place upon the appellant’s railroad where it was not securely fenced. It is objected to this paragraph that it does not aver that the animal was killed by the appellee's locomotive or cars, nor that, the injury occurred in Washington county. These averments, however, have escaped the attention of the appellant’s counsel, as they occur in the first paragraph of the complaint with much particularity.

As the verdict was for the appellee upon the second paragraph of the complaint, there is no available error in the overruling of the demurrer thereto. If a pleading at the trial is found not to be true, the error, if any, of overruling a demurrer to it, is rendered harmless. State, etc., v. Julian, 93 Ind. 292.

The causes for a new trial, as set out in the motion, were that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence", and that the damages assessed were too large. The evidence quite strongly supports the verdict, and the amount of the recovery. Judgment affirmed at the appellant’s costs.

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

Related

Thrash v. Starbuck
44 N.E. 543 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1896)
Springfield Engine & Thresher Co. v. Kennedy
34 N.E. 856 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
City of Aurora v. Bitner
100 Ind. 396 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1885)
McLean v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
100 Ind. 127 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1884)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 Ind. 601, 1884 Ind. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louisville-new-albany-chicago-railway-co-v-davis-ind-1884.