Schuer v. Veeder

7 Blackf. 342, 1845 Ind. LEXIS 14
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 26, 1845
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 7 Blackf. 342 (Schuer v. Veeder) 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
Schuer v. Veeder, 7 Blackf. 342, 1845 Ind. LEXIS 14 (Ind. 1845).

Opinion

Dewey, J.

— Case for so negligently managing the defendant’s boat, that it violently struck and sunk the plaintiff’s boat. General demurrer to the declaration sustained; and final judgment for the defendant.'

The question here raised is, whether a direct and forcible injury to property, not intentional, but the result of carelessness, may be the subject of an action on the case, or whether trespass is the only remedy?

There is no doubt that, at common law, trespass will lie for a direct and violent injury, whether inflicted through negligence, or intentionally. Leame v. Bray, 3 East, 593. And, since the decision of the case of Williams v. Holland, case has also been a legal remedy for such an injury, if occasioned by carelessness, but not if wilfully done. 10 Bing. 112. See, also, Ogle v. Barnes, 8 T. R. 188.—Blin v. Campbell, 14 Johns. 432. The demurrer should have been overruled

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

Related

Radke v. Schlundt
65 N.E. 770 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1902)
Wyant v. Crouse
53 L.R.A. 626 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Blackf. 342, 1845 Ind. LEXIS 14, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schuer-v-veeder-ind-1845.