Legal Opinion

Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. Engrer

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided March 29, 1892No. 408PublishedCited by 11 opinions

From the Clark Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.

The overruling of the appellant’s motion to require the appellee to make his complaint more specific is assigned as error.

Such a motion can not become part of the record except by bill of exceptions or order of court. Section 650, R. S. 1881; Board, etc., v. Hill, 115 Ind. 316.

The appellant sought to save its exception to this ruling by a bill of exceptions, but it does not contain the motion, which is referred to in the bill as follows : “ (Heretofore set out in the record, on page 4.)”

A written instrument copied in the transcript, but not constituting a part of the record by virtue of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. SelbyIndiana Supreme Court · 1874
  2. Kesler v. MyersIndiana Supreme Court · 1873
  3. Boyce v. FitzpatrickIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Jeffersonville, Madison & Indianapolis Railroad v. DunlapIndiana Supreme Court · 1868
  5. Pennsylvania Co. v. GallentineIndiana Supreme Court · 1881

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

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railway Co. v. YoungIndiana Supreme Court · 1896
  2. Pennsylvania Co. v. FertigIndiana Court of Appeals · 1904
  3. Cincinnati, Hamilton & Dayton Railroad v. VoghtIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901
  4. Toledo, St. Louis & Western Railroad v. BeeryIndiana Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Chicago & Western Indiana Railroad v. MarshallIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905

6 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