National Express Co. v. Moore

Indiana Court of Appeals

National Express Co. v. Moore

135 N.E. 264, 78 Ind. App. 696, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 172

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 9, 1922

DocketNo. 11,294

StatusPublished

This text of 135 N.E. 264 (National Express Co. v. Moore) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

National Express Co. v. Moore, 135 N.E. 264, 78 Ind. App. 696, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 172 (Ind. Ct. App. 1922).

Pincite

Opinion

McMahan, J.

— Appellees recovered judgment against appellant for damages on account of the death of a hog which was being transported by appellant as a common carrier. The complaint alleges that the hog died by reason of appellant’s negligence.

The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, the specifications of which are: (1) That the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the decision is contrary to law; and (3) in the admission of certain evidence.

Appellees insist that no question is presented by appellant’s brief for our consideration, and in support of this contention cite a large number of authorities including Leach v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 240, 97 N. E. 792, and Provident, etc., Ins. Co. v. Wolf (1907), 168 Ind. 690, 704, 80 N. E. 26, 120 Am. St. 395. It is not necessary for us to set out appellees’ contention or the manner in which appellant has attempted to present the questions. It is sufficient to say that we are not at liberty to disregard appellees’ contention nor the law as decided by the Supreme Court.

On the authority of the cases cited, the judgment is affirmed.

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

McMahan, J.

— Appellees recovered judgment against appellant for damages on account of the death of a hog which was being transported by appellant as a common carrier. The complaint alleges that the hog died by reason of appellant’s negligence.

The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial, the specifications of which are: (1) That the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence; (2) that the decision is contrary to law; and (3) in the admission of certain evidence.

Appellees insist that no question is presented by appellant’s brief for our consideration, and in support of this contention cite a large number of authorities including Leach v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 240, 97 N. E. 792, and Provident, etc., Ins. Co. v. Wolf (1907), 168 Ind. 690, 704, 80 N. E. 26, 120 Am. St. 395. It is not necessary for us to set out appellees’ contention or the manner in which appellant has attempted to present the questions. It is sufficient to say that we are not at liberty to disregard appellees’ contention nor the law as decided by the Supreme Court.

On the authority of the cases cited, the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 N.E. 264, 78 Ind. App. 696, 1922 Ind. App. LEXIS 172, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-express-co-v-moore-indctapp-1922.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack