Legal Opinion
Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. Bodenschatz
Indiana Supreme Court
Decided February 5, 1895No. 16,266PublishedCited by 27 opinions
From the Monroe Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtMonks, J.
This was an action by appellant to enforce specific performance of a written contract. So much of the contract as is material to this controversy is as follows:
“This agreement, made and entered into this 10th day of March, 1890, by and between the Bodenschatz Stone Company, incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois, parties of the first part, and the Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company, parties of the second part.
“Witnesseth, that whereas, said first party is desirous *253•of opening up a stone quarry near Bedford, Lawrence county, Indiana, removed from the main line of…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Marble Co. v. RipleySupreme Court of the United States · 1870
- Blanchard v. Detroit, Lansing & Lake Michigan RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
- Carthage Turnpike Co. v. AndrewsIndiana Supreme Court · 1885
- Seymour v. DelanceyNew York Court of Chancery · 1822
- Ikerd v. BeaversIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by27 opinions
- Burke v. MeadIndiana Supreme Court · 1902
- Gadbury v. Ohio & Indiana Consolidated Natural & Illuminating Gas Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Girard Trust Co. v. Tampashores Development Co.Supreme Court of Florida · 1928
- Alexander v. SpauldingIndiana Supreme Court · 1903
- Foltz v. EvansIndiana Court of Appeals · 1943
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.