Legal Opinion

Conwell v. Tate

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 23, 1886No. 12,600PublishedCited by 5 opinions

From the Howard Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

The appellees, proceeding under the law of 1883, petitioned for a ditch, and the appellants remonstrated. A single cause of remonstrance was stated, namely, the third *172statutory cause, that the lands of appellants were assessed for too much. We think that this remonstrance narrowed the issue to a single question, and that is this: Was the amount of benefits assessed against the appellants’ lands too largo ? The only controverted point, therefore, was as to the amount of the assessment; there was no other issue.

It is asserted by counsel that the case of Neff v. Reed, 98 Ind. 341, decides that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. In re JohnNew York Supreme Court · 1839
  2. Meranda v. SpurlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Anderson v. BakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  4. Schmied v. KeeneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
  5. Neff v. ReedIndiana Supreme Court · 1884

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. WilesIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
  2. Rogers v. VenisIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
  3. Catron v. Deep Fork Drainage Dist. No. 1Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
  4. Morrow v. GeetingIndiana Court of Appeals · 1895
  5. Brady v. Miami Conservancy DistrictOhio Court of Appeals · 1919

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

Powered by the Exa API