Legal Opinion

City of Evansville v. Martin

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided October 9, 1885No. 12,090PublishedCited by 18 opinions

From the Vanderburgh Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtElliott, J.

appellant assigns for error that “ The court erred in not rendering judgment for the plaintiff, because the answers of the defendants are not sufficient to constitute a cause of defence to its complaint.”

There was no motion for judgment non obstante veredicto, nor was there any motion for a judgment on the pleadings in the' court below. Here/ for the first time, the answer is assailed. There was no attack upon it in the trial court in any form, nor was there any exception to any ruling of the court which involved the question of its sufficiency. Notwithstanding the fact that there was no…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Buchanan v. Berkshire Life InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1883
  2. Standley v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  3. Western Union Telegraph Co. v. FentonIndiana Supreme Court · 1875
  4. Trentman v. EldridgeIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
  5. Scheible v. SlagleIndiana Supreme Court · 1883

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

3Cited by18 opinions

  1. Evansville & Richmond Railroad v. MadduxIndiana Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Riehl v. Evansville Foundry Ass'nIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
  3. Campbell v. Wyoming Development Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1940
  4. McKinney v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1892
  5. Joiner v. GoldsmithSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910

13 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