Sohn v. Cambern
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Rush Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
The appellant’s contention is that a complaint by a citizen to recover for’ an injury accruing from the unlawful obstruction of a highway must show a special injury, or the action can not be maintained. We have no doubt that the position of counsel is well assumed. Waltman v. Rund, 94 Ind. 225; McCowan v. Whitesides, 31 Ind. 235; Angell Highways, section 285. But in this case the assertion of the rule stated does not determine the controversy, for a further question remains, and that is, whether the appellant can now successfully avail himself of the objection urged against the complaint.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- City of Indianapolis v. KingsburyIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad v. SpencerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. BalchIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- McCowan v. WhitesidesIndiana Supreme Court · 1869
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Perkins v. HaywardIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. EberleIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Dantzer v. Indianapolis Union Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1894
- New v. WalkerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Baker v. PyattIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.