Pugh v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.

110 N.E. 193, 184 Ind. 350, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 163
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 24, 1915
DocketNo. 22,924
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 110 N.E. 193 (Pugh v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co.) 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
Pugh v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co., 110 N.E. 193, 184 Ind. 350, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 163 (Ind. 1915).

Opinion

Spencer, J.

This is an action instituted by appellant, as administrator of the estate of George W. Lichlyter, deceased, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful death of said decedent on January 31, 1911, while at work as a freight brakeman in the employ of appellee. On issues presented by appellee’s general denial to the first and second paragraphs of amended complaint, the cause was submitted to a jury, which, at the close of appellant’s evidence, returned a general verdict for appellee. This verdict appears to have been based on appellee’s motion for a peremptory instruction in its favor, but neither the record nor appellant’s brief contains a copy of said instruction. The only error assigned and relied on for a reversal of the judgment rendered on said verdict is that the court erred in overruling appellant’s motion for a new trial. Neither the text of this motion nor its substance is set out in appellant’s statement of the record and his brief, in that respect, wholly fails to comply with Eule 22, clause 5, of this court. No question, therefore, is properly presented for our consideration. Judgment affirmed.

Note. — Reported in 110 N. E. 193. See, also, 3 C. J. 1420 ; 2 Cyc 1014.

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

Related

Poff v. McKilip, Admr.
18 N.E.2d 963 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1939)
Allen v. Allen
147 N.E. 310 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1925)
Oelfke v. State
137 N.E. 553 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1923)
Peel v. Overstreet
130 N.E. 113 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1921)
Jones v. Lucas
128 N.E. 696 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Morrison v. Shake
128 N.E. 699 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1920)
Woolley v. Indiana Asphalt Paving Co.
120 N.E. 597 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Biddle v. Birden
119 N.E. 865 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1918)
Mackey v. State ex rel. Smith
119 N.E. 711 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1918)
Robbins v. Bank of Starke County
117 N.E. 562 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1917)
Milburn v. Cory
110 N.E. 193 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1915)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 N.E. 193, 184 Ind. 350, 1915 Ind. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pugh-v-cleveland-cincinnati-chicago-st-louis-railway-co-ind-1915.