Legal Opinion

Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. McDaneld

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided September 13, 1892No. 331PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Prom the Clark Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtBlack, J.

The appellant’s motion to require the appellee to make his complaint more specific was overruled. Such a motion must be brought into the record by bill of exceptions or by special order of the court. Thomas v. Griffin, 1 Ind. App. 457; Elliott App. Proc., sections 190, 191, 814.

A bill of exceptions relating to this ruling was filed, but it does not contain the motion. It is said in the bill that the “motion was in writing, and filed in open court, and reads *110as follows, to wit (heretofore set out in this record, on pages 3 and 4).” Ou the pages of the transcript to which reference is thus…

2Cases cited14 opinions

  1. French v. Taunton Branch RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1875
  2. Illinois Central Railroad v. BachesIllinois Supreme Court · 1870
  3. Boyce v. FitzpatrickIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  4. Illinois Central Railroad v. HammerIllinois Supreme Court · 1874
  5. Town of Rushville v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1886

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad v. VesterIndiana Court of Appeals · 1911
  2. Sample v. CarrollIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  3. Scudder v. JonesIndiana Supreme Court · 1892
  4. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. ErvingtonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1915
  5. Conaway v. ConawayIndiana Court of Appeals · 1894

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

Powered by the Exa API