Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. Machler
Indiana Supreme Court
From LaPorte Circuit Court; J. G. Richter, Judge. Proceeding for the establishment of a drain in which the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company remonstrated. From a judgment establishing the drain, the remonstrant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtHadley, J.
Appellant was a remonstrant in. a proceeding instituted by the appellees under the drainage act of 1885 (§5623 et seq. Burns 1901), for the construction of a ditch. The judgment of the circuit court is assailed for apparent want of jurisdiction in this: (1) Because there was no petition on file when the primary notice was given; (2) because on the day stated in the notice for docketing there was no petition on file to be docketed, nor any action taken in the proceeding; and (3) because the petition was filed on the same day it was docketed, which was three days *161after the time stated in. the…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Perkins v. HaywardIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Adams v. City of ShelbyvilleIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
- Gunder v. TibbitsIndiana Supreme Court · 1899
- Miller v. CoulterIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
- Pickering v. State ex rel. DyarIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Slinkard v. HunterIndiana Supreme Court · 1936
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MumfordIndiana Supreme Court · 1935
- Ritter v. Drainage District No. 1Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HodgeIndiana Supreme Court · 1911
- Smith v. GustinIndiana Supreme Court · 1907