Legal Opinion

City of Peru v. Bearss

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1877PublishedCited by 29 opinions

From the Miami Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtHowk, J.

In this action, the appellees were the plaintiffs, and the appellants were the defendants, in the court below.

*577In their complaint the appellees alleged, in substance, that the appellees Daniel R. Bearss, James Y. Tyner and John II. Jack were citizens and property holders of Peru township, in Miami county, Indiana; that the appellee The Howe Machine Company was a corporation organized under the laws of Connecticut, and doing business in this State, under the laws thereof; and that the appellee. The Indiana Manufacturing Company was a corporation organized under the laws of, and doing business…

2Cited by29 opinions

  1. Grusenmeyer v. City of LogansportIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Doctor v. HartmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Strosser v. City of Fort WayneIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  4. Catterlin v. City of FrankfortIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  5. Mullikin v. City of BloomingtonIndiana Supreme Court · 1880

24 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