Legal Opinion

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Hodge

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1911No. 21,681PublishedCited by 3 opinions

From Grant Circuit Court; 11. J. Paulus, Judge. Drainage proceedings by William D. Hodge and others, against which the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company remonstrates. From a judgment for petitioners, remonstrant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtMorris, J.

This was a proceeding to establish a drain under §6140 ei seq. Burns 1908, Acts 1907 p. 508. Appellees’ petition was referred to the drainage commissioners, who, on October 28, 1909, filed a report favorable to the construction of the proposed drain, and in which lands owned by appellant, not named in the petition, were reported as affected, but were not assessed as benefited. Thereupon the court ordered notice to be given to appellant, returnable November 15. The affidavit, proving service of notice, recites that the notice was served, on November 1, 1909, on “the agent of the Pittsburgh,…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Goodrich v. StanglandIndiana Supreme Court · 1900
  2. Lane Bros. & Co. v. BausermanSupreme Court of Virginia · 1904
  3. Keiser v. MillsIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
  4. Sunier v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Carr v. BooneIndiana Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kramer v. FishbackIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
  2. McCleery v. ZintsmasterIndiana Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Benbow v. GrayIndiana Supreme Court · 1920

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API