Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Worley
Indiana Supreme Court
From the Monroe Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.
The appellee’s complaint is in one paragraph, and, as originally drawn, sought a recovery for thirteen mules ¡killed by one of the appellant’s trains. On the trial it appeared that the mules were killed by different trains and at different times, whereupon the appellee dismissed as to the .mules killed by the north bound train, and of the ruling permitting this to be done appellant complains.
There can be no doubt under our statute and our decisions, that a plaintiff may dismiss his action at any time before the jury retire. This general doctrine we do not undei’stand the .-appellant’s counsel…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Co. v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railroad v. SpencerIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Indianapolis, Peru & Chicago Railway Co. v. BushIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Killian v. EigenmannIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. BalchIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Korrady v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1892
- Carpenter v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1940
- May v. GouldingMichigan Supreme Court · 1961
- Aurelius v. Lake Erie & Western RailroadIndiana Court of Appeals · 1898
- Taylor v. WootanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.