American Express Company v. State
| Decision Date | 27 November 1906 |
| Docket Number | 20,564 |
| Citation | 79 N.E. 352,167 Ind. 428 |
| Parties | American Express Company v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Monroe Circuit Court; James B. Wilson, Judge.
Action by the State of Indiana against the American Express Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
J. E Henley and Baker & Daniels, for appellant.
Robert G. Miller, Arthur M. Hadley and Brooks & Brooks, for appellee.
This action was brought by the State against appellant to recover the penalty of $ 500 for an alleged violation of certain provisions of the act of March 7, 1901 (Acts 1901, p. 149, §§ 3312b-3312f Burns 1901). An answer in six paragraphs was filed. Appellee's demurrer for want of facts was sustained to the second, third, fourth, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of said answer.
A trial of said cause resulted in a special finding and judgment in favor of appellee for $ 500 and costs.
If the second, fifth, and sixth paragraphs were each sufficient to withstand the demurrer for want of facts, a question we need not and do not decide, it was because each of said paragraphs was good as an argumentative denial. All the evidence, if any, admissible under said paragraphs of answer was admissible under the first paragraph of said answer, which was a general denial. It follows that the error, if any, in sustaining the demurrer to said second, fifth, and sixth paragraphs of answer was harmless. Tomlinson v. Bainaka (1904), 163 Ind. 112, 115, 116, 70 N.E. 155, and cases cited.
The questions presented in this case are substantially the same as those involved and decided in Adams Express Co v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 328, 67 N.E. 1033; American Express Co. v. Southern Ind. Express Co. (1906), ante, 2...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co. v. Kidd
... ... Action by Lulu Kidd against the Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Cause transferred from ... judgment is sought for the reasons: (1) That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; (2) that the court erred ... American Telephone Co. v. Green, 164 Ind. 349, 354, 73 N. E. 707, and cases cited ... ...
-
Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Company v. Kidd
... ... reversal of the judgment is sought for the reasons: (1) That ... the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a ... cause of action; (2) that the court erred in overruling ... conditions which could be fully placed before the jury. [167 ... Ind. 413] American" Tel., etc., Co. v. Green ... (1905), 164 Ind. 349, 73 N.E. 707, and cases cited ... \xC2" ... ...
-
Rowley v. Pogue
...Co. v. Isgrig (1914) 181 Ind. 211, 104 N. E. 60;Perry v. Acme Oil Co. (1909) 44 Ind. App. 207, 88 N. E. 859;American Express Co. v. State (1906) 167 Ind. 428, 79 N. E. 352; and cases cited in Indiana and North Eastern Digests, title, Appeal and Error, 1040(7). Available error cannot be pred......
-
Rowley v. Pogue
... ... stockholders in every bank and banking company shall be ... responsible to creditors for an amount equal to the face ... the banking department of the State of Indiana on March 14, ... 1927; for fifteen years prior thereto it was ... Acme Oil Co. (1909), 44 Ind.App ... 207, 88 N.E. 859; American Express Co. v ... State (1906), 167 Ind. 428, 79 N.E. 352; and cases ... ...