Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Bir
Indiana Court of Appeals
Prom Floyd Circuit Court; William G. Utz, Judge. Action by George P. Bir against Tbe Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company and another. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtIbach, P. J.
1. The first error argued is the failure of the trial court to sustain the motion of the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, (hereafter referred to as the Pittsburgh company, for convenience) to make more specific each paragraph of the complaint, “(1) by setting forth therein the facts on which plaintiff bases the conclusion that the defendant was negligent, (2) by alleging the facts showing that the defendant was negligent.” In brief, each of the three paragraphs of complaint alleges that appellee was a railway mail clerk in the employ of the United States…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Pennsylvania Co. v. MarionIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Malott v. Central Trust Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1906
- Ohio & Mississippi R. W. Co. v. DickersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Southern Railway Co. v. UtzIndiana Court of Appeals · 1912
- Indianapolis & Eastern Railway Co. v. BennettIndiana Court of Appeals · 1906
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Fauvre Coal Co. v. KushnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1919
- Brindle v. HarterIndiana Court of Appeals · 1965