Legal Opinion

Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Pierson

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 11, 1908No. 21,104PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Prom Superior Court of Vanderburgh County; Alexander Gilchrist, Judge. Action by Harry D. Pierson against the Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company. Prom a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

Appellee recovered a judgment against appellant in the court below for $7,000 on account of a personal injury sustained by reason of appellant’s alleged negligence. Appellant’s demurrer to the complaint, on the ground of insufficient facts, was overruled, and that ruling constitutes the first alleged error.

1. That part of the complaint necessary to a consideration of the question presented reads as follows: “That Walnut street, in the town of Dale, is one of the principal thoroughfares of said town, and is a public street; that on the date before mentioned, from said Walnut street, and…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Co. v. MarionIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  2. Laporte Carriage Co. v. SullenderIndiana Supreme Court · 1905
  3. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. LightheiserIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
  4. Southern Indiana Railway Co. v. FineIndiana Supreme Court · 1904
  5. Robertson v. FordIndiana Supreme Court · 1905

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad v. HoffmanIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
  2. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. PerkinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1908
  3. Home Telephone Co. v. WeirIndiana Court of Appeals · 1913
  4. Jourdan v. Town of LagrangeIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
  5. Phillips v. KlepferIndiana Supreme Court · 1940

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

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

Powered by the Exa API