Legal Opinion

Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Staton

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 4, 1924No. 11,892Published

1Opinion of the CourtDausman, C. J.

(after stating the facts as above) :

The statutory provisions imposing upon every railroad company the duty to fence its right of way are in some respects quite indefinite. § 5436 et seq. Burns 1914. However, in the light of the decisions, it is clear that the defendant (the appellant here) was not required to fence at the place where the mule entered upon the right of way. Indianapolis, etc., R. Co. v. Kinney (1856), 8 Ind. 402 ; Indiana, etc., R. Co. v. Quick (1887), 109 Ind. 295 ; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Vincent (1915), 60 Ind. App. 476. To entitle the plaintiff (the appellee here) to…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Indianapolis & Cincinnati Railroad v. KinneyIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
  2. Indiana, Bloomington & Western Railway Co. v. QuickIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  3. Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville Railway Co. v. RamseyIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  4. Cleveland v. VincentIndiana Court of Appeals · 1915

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

Powered by the Exa API