Legal Opinion

Thickstun v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 10, 1889No. 13,708PublishedCited by 4 opinions

From the Clark Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the Court

Elliott, C. J. —

The appellant recovered judgment for twenty-five dollars in the court below, and moved for a new trial, assigning as causes that the finding is contrary to law, and that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Under the settled rule, no question as to the amount of the recovery is presented by this motion for a new trial. Hyatt v. Mat-*27tingly, 68 Ind. 271; Langohr v. Smith, 81 Ind. 495; McElhoes v. Dale, 81 Ind. 67; Millikan v. Patterson, 91 Ind. 515; Fort Wayne, etc., R. W. Co. v. Beyerle, 110 Ind. 100. As the sole contention is that, the recovery was not for a sum to…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Fort Wayne, Cincinnati & Louisville Railway Co. v. BeyerleIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  2. Hyatt v. MattinglyIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  3. Millikan v. PattersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Langohr v. SmithIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  5. McElhoes v. DaleIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. City of Ft. Wayne v. Capehart-Farnsworth Corp.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1957
  2. Syndicate Improvement Co. v. BradleyWyoming Supreme Court · 1897
  3. City of Indianapolis v. WoessnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
  4. Silver Fleet Motor Express, Inc. v. Scott-Teen, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1962

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

Powered by the Exa API