Legal Opinion

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Heck

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1875PublishedCited by 17 opinions

From tlie Howard Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtWorden, J.

This was an action by the appellee against the appellant, upon contract. The complaint was in two paragraphs, not materially unlike. It alleged, in substance, that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, by which the plaintiff was to furnish, cut, haul, and pile along the line of the defendant’s railroad a quantity of firewood, which the defendant was to measure, receive, and pay the plaintiff for, at a specified rate per cord; that, in pursuance of the contract, the plaintiff did furnish, cut, haul, and pile along the line of the defendant’s road a large…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Dustan v. . McAndrewNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
  2. Bement v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1836
  3. Allen v. JarvisSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1849
  4. McConihe v. . the New York and Erie Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  5. Ganson v. MadiganWisconsin Supreme Court · 1860

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by17 opinions

  1. Dwiggins v. ClarkIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Gaar, Scott & Co. v. FleshmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1906
  3. Fell v. MullerIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Dill v. MumfordIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
  5. Rastetter v. ReynoldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1903

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API