Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Oglesby
Indiana Supreme Court
Erom Eayette Circuit Court; Ferdinand 8. Swift, J udge. Suit by Joseph E. Oglesby and another against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. The city of Rushville was impleaded. Erom a decree in favor of plaintiffs and the city of Rushville, defendant appeals. Transferred from Appellate Court under §1331^ Burns 1901, Acts 1901, p. 590.
1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.
This action was brought by appellees Oglesby and Kelly to foreclose a lien upon appellant’s property on account of street improvements made by them as contractors under a contract with the appellee city of Rushville. Appellant’s demurrer to the complaint for statutory causes was overruled, and an answer in two para*544graphs filed. The first paragraph of answer was a general denial, and the second alleged, among other things, that appellant’s predecessor was, on the 20th day of December, 1882, the owner in fee of a certain tract of ground in the city of Rushville in use for depot purposes, and…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- City of Des Moines v. HallSupreme Court of Iowa · 1868
- Mayne v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Becker v. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Vrana v. City of St. LouisSupreme Court of Missouri · 1901
- T.M. Ry. Co. v. S.W. Tel. Tel. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1900
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- Taylor v. StrayerIndiana Supreme Court · 1906
- State Ex Rel. Milligan v. Ritter's EstateIndiana Supreme Court · 1943
- Moorhouse v. KunkalmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1911
- Kingan & Co. v. OssamIndiana Court of Appeals · 1918
- Drainage District No. 7 v. BernardsOregon Supreme Court · 1918
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.