Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Wuest
Indiana Court of Appeals
Prom Ripley Circuit Court; Willard New, Judge. Action by William Wuest, by his next friend, against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. Prom a judgment on a'verdict for plaintiff for $2,000, defendant appeals. (Por decision on merits see — Ind. App. —.)
1Per curiam
The transcript herein contains 555 typewritten pages. Appellant has filed a printed brief of 53 pages. The attorney who acted for appellee in the trial court appears for him in this court. No brief has been filed for appellee, and the judgment might be reversed under the rule declared in Hanrahan v. Knickerbocker (1905), 35 Ind. App. 138, and McAfee v. Bending (1905), 36 Ind. App. 628.
1. An attorney is an officer of the court. He possesses, as such, certain privileges, and is protected by the court in the discharge of his duties. He owes a corresponding duty both to the court and to his…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- McAfee v. BendingIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
- Hanrahan v. KnickerbockerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
3Cited by6 opinions
- Bryant v. School Town of Oakland CityIndiana Supreme Court · 1930
- Grand Trunk Western Railway Co. v. ReynoldsIndiana Supreme Court · 1910
- City of Connersville v. AdamsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1952
- Cobe v. MalloyIndiana Court of Appeals · 1909
- Stuyvesant Insurance v. United Public InsuranceIndiana Court of Appeals · 1966
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.