Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Schaefer
Indiana Court of Appeals
Prom Huntington Circuit Court; Milo Feightner, Special Judge. Action by Martin B. Schaefer and another against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company and others. Prom a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtMyers, C. J.
— Appellees, as partners, sued appellants, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company, referred to in the briefs as the Big Pour company, which name we shall use for brevity, and the Wabash Railroad Company. Bert J. Bartlett also was made a defendant, but the verdict and judgment were in his favor, and he is not a party here. The complaint was in five paragraphs. Appellants have assigned errors separately; the Big Pour company assigning the overruling of its separate and several demurrer to the first, second, third and fifth paragraphs of *374the complaint, the Wabash company,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Maghee v. Camden & Amboy Railroad Transportation Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Johnson v. New York Central RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Snow v. Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1887
- Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad v. KeithIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Goodrich v. . ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Wabash Railroad v. PriddyIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Nashville v. JohnsonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
- Sutherland v. Ringsby Truck Lines, Inc.Colorado Court of Appeals · 1976
- Marks v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1918
- Carstens Packing Co. v. Southern Pacific Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1930
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.