Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Hubbard
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Carroll Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
The first paragraph of the appellee’s complaint was, by the instruction of the trial court, withdrawn from the jury, and the case, therefore, stands upon the second paragraph. That paragraph is a demand of compensation for services performed for the appellant, at its request,, by the appellee.
The cause had been at issue for four months when the appellant asked leave to file an amended answer. We can not. say from the record that the trial court abused its discretion, in refusing permission to open the issues. It devolves upon the party who assails the refusal of the court to open the-issues…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Curtis v. GoodingIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Boots v. CanineIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Atchison Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. PlunkettSupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Trentman v. WileyIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. PedigoIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by29 opinions
- Branson v. StudabakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Standard Land Corporation of Indiana v. BogardusIndiana Court of Appeals · 1972
- Pouder v. TateIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Coleman v. ChapmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1966
- Ft. Wayne Cooperage Co. v. PageIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.