Legal Opinion

Tien v. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co.

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided May 13, 1896No. 1,807PublishedCited by 10 opinions

From the Lake Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtLotz, J.

The appellant’s lands were burned by fire. He sued tlie appellee to recover damages for the injury sustained, alleging that the appellee negligently permitted combustible matter to accumulate upon its right-of-way, and negligently set fire to the same, and negligently permitted the fire to escape to adjoining land, and from thence to the plaintiff’s lands.

A special verdict was returned, and appellee made a motion thereon for judgment in its favor. This motion was sustained, to which ruling the appellant excepted. The ruling on this motion presents the only question for our consideration.

It…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Bedford, Springville, Owensburg & Bloomfield Railroad v. RainboltIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  3. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. NitscheIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
  4. Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HartIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
  5. Chicago & Erie Railroad v. SmithIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Indiana Horseshoe Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Wabash Railroad v. MillerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. German InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909
  4. Southern Railway Co. v. DarwinSupreme Court of Alabama · 1908
  5. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. PeckIndiana Court of Appeals · 1916

5 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