Eisenhauer v. Dill
Indiana Court of Appeals
Ei’om tlie "Wabasia Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
The material averments in the first paragraph of the amended and substituted complaint are in substance as follows:
That appellees were, and for more than twenty years prior to the commencement of the action had been, husband and wife, and residents of the State of Indiana, and that said Solomon Dill was a householder, and that they had a family, etc.; that for three years prior to August 4th, 1888, the husband had been absent from the State, temporarily engaged in business in Michigan, and that the wife and children continued during all of that time to reside as a family in this State; that…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Ohio & Mississippi Railway Co. v. CosbyIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Astley v. CapronIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
- Chatten v. SniderIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Kestler v. KernIndiana Court of Appeals · 1891
- Board of Commissioners v. SlatterIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Green v. SimonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. State ex rel. WardIndiana Court of Appeals · 1893
- Kolb v. RaisorIndiana Court of Appeals · 1897
- Millerke v. ReileySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Parketon v. PugsLeyMissouri Court of Appeals · 1909
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.