Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor

3 N.E. 253, 103 Ind. 553, 1885 Ind. LEXIS 565
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 19, 1885
DocketNo. 12,144
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 3 N.E. 253 (Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor) 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
Pennsylvania Co. v. Poor, 3 N.E. 253, 103 Ind. 553, 1885 Ind. LEXIS 565 (Ind. 1885).

Opinion

Elliott, J.

The complaint of the appellee alleges that the appellant was, on the 4th day of September, 1882, a common carrier; that on that day he delivered to its agent at Martinsville twenty-four thousand pounds of green corn to be transported to Indianapolis; that the appellant undertook to deliver the corn to one Perry as the consignee, at Indianapolis, on that day, and that Perry was the consignee. Negligence in failing to deliver the corn is alleged, and damages are shown. To this complaint the appellant unsuccessfully demurred.

It is affirmed by the appellant’s counsel, that the complaint is bad, for the reason that it affirmatively shows that the cause of action is in Perry, the consignee, and not in Poor, the consignor. This position is well assumed. The general rule unquestionably is that the right of action is in the consignee. It is so laid down in the text-books, and it has been so declared by this court. Browne Carriers, section 596; Hutchinson Carriers, section 727; Madison, etc., R. R. Co. v. Whitesel, 11 Ind. 55; Pennsylvania Co. v. Holderman, 69 Ind. 18.

There are exceptions to this general rule, but facts showing that the case forms an exception must be pleaded. The law presumes that the consignee is the real party in interest, and unless there are facts pleaded showing the contrary, this general presumption will prevail. We can find nothing in the complaint before us which takes the case out of the general rule. If the property was owned by the appellant, that fact should have been averred. In the absence of this averment, the presumption of which we have spoken rules the case.

Where a complaint is challenged by demurrer, and an exception is reserved, we can not look into the evidence to as-certain whether injury did or did not result. The sufficiency [555]*555of the complaint is to be determined from the facts stated in it, and not from what may, or may not, appear in the evidence. The court can not examine evidence to determine a question presented by demurrer; for the demurrer presents the question fully, and the question presented must be decided according to the record. Friddle v. Crane, 68 Ind. 583; Johnson v. Breedlove, 72 Ind. 368; Abell v. Riddle, 75 Ind. 345; Over v. Shannon, 75 Ind. 352; Conyers v. Mericles, 75 Ind. 443; Sims v. City of Frankfort, 79 Ind. 446; Wilson v. Town of Monticello, 85 Ind. 10, see pp. 20, 21; Weir v. State, ex rel., 96 Ind. 311, see p. 315.

Filed Nov. 19, 1885.

Judgment reversed.

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

Related

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Rushton
148 N.E. 337 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1925)
Michigan Central Railroad v. S. J. Peabody Lumber Co.
131 N.E. 841 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1921)
Adams Express Co. v. White
104 A. 110 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1918)
F. W. McNeely & Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.
115 N.E. 954 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Robbins v. Brazil Syndicate R. & B. Co.
114 N.E. 707 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1917)
Vulcan Iron Works Co. v. Electro Magnetic Gold Mining Co.
99 N.E. 429 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Gregory v. Arms
96 N.E. 196 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1911)
Friedersdorf v. Lacy
90 N.E. 766 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1910)
City of Decatur v. McKean
78 N.E. 982 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1906)
Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. Peru-Van Zandt Implement Co.
85 P. 408 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1906)
First National Bank v. Northern Pacific Railway Co.
68 P. 965 (Washington Supreme Court, 1902)
Sheffer v. Hines
49 N.E. 348 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1898)
Eliason v. Bronnenberg
46 N.E. 582 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1897)
Butler v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad
46 N.E. 92 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1897)
Rhodes v. Hilligoss
45 N.E. 666 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
Supreme Council of the Catholic Benevolent Legion v. Boyle
44 N.E. 56 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1896)
Lake Erie & Western Railroad v. Condon
38 N.E. 71 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1894)
Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co. v. Kurtz
35 N.E. 201 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)
McFadden v. Schroeder
35 N.E. 131 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1893)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 N.E. 253, 103 Ind. 553, 1885 Ind. LEXIS 565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-co-v-poor-ind-1885.