Legal Opinion

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

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided February 12, 1884No. 11,128PublishedCited by 27 opinions

Prom the Clay Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtZollars, J.

— The complaint by appellee consists of three paragraphs. A demurrer to each for want of sufficient facts was overruled; appellant excepted, and on this appeal assigns the ruling as error.' No point is made here except upon the ^insufficiency of the second and third paragraphs of the complaint.

The case seems to have been commenced in the Putnam Circuit Court, and on change of venue taken to the Clay Circuit Court, where a trial was had, which resulted in a ver- • diet and judgment for appellee upon the whole complaint. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal, because of the insufficiency of…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Toledo & Wabash Railway Co. v. GoddardIndiana Supreme Court · 1865
  2. Shoemaker v. Board of CommissionersIndiana Supreme Court · 1871
  3. Pennsylvania Co. v. GallentineIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Pennsylvania Co. v. HoldermanIndiana Supreme Court · 1879
  5. Smith v. JeffriesIndiana Supreme Court · 1865

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

3Cited by27 opinions

  1. City of Fort Wayne v. CoombsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  2. Belt Railroad & Stock Yard Co. v. MannIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Baker v. PyattIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  4. Jones v. CullenIndiana Supreme Court · 1895
  5. Brannen v. Kokomo, Greentown & Jerome Gravel Road Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1888

22 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