Conwell v. Tate
Indiana Supreme Court
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
- In re JohnNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Meranda v. SpurlinIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Anderson v. BakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Schmied v. KeeneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1880
- Neff v. ReedIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. WilesIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- Rogers v. VenisIndiana Supreme Court · 1894
- Catron v. Deep Fork Drainage Dist. No. 1Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1913
- Morrow v. GeetingIndiana Court of Appeals · 1895
- Brady v. Miami Conservancy DistrictOhio Court of Appeals · 1919