Chicago & Erie Railroad Company v. Dinius
Decision Date | 17 December 1913 |
Docket Number | 21,665 |
Parties | Chicago and Erie Railroad Company et al. v. Dinius |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Wabash Circuit Court; Charles A. Cole, Judge.
Action by Clark W. Dinius against the Chicago and Erie Railroad Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
W. O Johnson, C. R. Lucas, Walter G. Todd, U. Z. Wiley, A. H Jones, Charles A. Schmettan, Guenther & Clark, Clarence Brown and Warren G. Sayre, for appellants.
W. A Branyan, F. O. Switzer and U. S. Lesh, for appellee.
Appellee recovered a judgment in this action against both appellants for injuries sustained by him while performing the duties of brakeman in the service of appellant, Chicago and Erie Railroad Company, on a track jointly used by it and appellant, Toledo, St. Louis and Western Railroad Company. In the trial below, the record shows these railroads were, for the sake of brevity, designated respectively as the "Erie," and the "Clover Leaf," and will be so termed in the consideration of this appeal. Appellants suffered a defeat in a former trial and appealed to this court from a judgment therein rendered against them, and here the judgment was reversed with instructions to sustain the demurrers of appellants to the complaint. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius (1908), 170 Ind. 222, 84 N.E. 9, 84 N.E. 9. When the cause was remanded appellee filed an amended complaint in two paragraphs and the judgment before us now for review is the result of a trial thereon.
Preliminary to many questions presented for consideration the Clover Leaf railroad company urges a question of jurisdiction. The action was begun in Huntington County against the Erie railroad company alone. Both railroads ran into and had offices in that county. A change of venue was taken by appellee to Wabash County, a territory occupied by the Erie but not by the Clover Leaf. There the latter railroad was made a party and summons was issued to an adjoining county and served upon it there. It not appearing on the face of the complaint, the question of jurisdiction over the person of the Clover Leaf railroad company was raised by plea in abatement to which the appellee addressed a demurrer which was sustained. This action of the court, it is contended, was error. A review of the question is foreclosed. The same question was involved in the former appeal, presented by the record and urged in the brief of the Clover Leaf railroad company. A second appeal brings up for review and decision nothing but the proceedings subsequent to the reversal. Thereafter all questions presented by the first record will be considered as finally determined by the judgment of this court. All such questions not expressly affirmed or reversed, will, by implication, be deemed affirmed. Dodge v. Gaylord (1876), 53 Ind. 365; Stevens v. Templeton (1910), 174 Ind. 129, 91 N.E. 563; Ohio Valley Trust Co. v. Wernke (1912), 179 Ind. 49, 99 N.E. 734. This question, however, seems to have been decided against the contention now made by appellant in Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Marshall (1906), 38 Ind.App. 217, 75 N.E. 973.
Demurrers were addressed to each paragraph of the amended complaint by each of the appellants which were overruled by the court. These rulings are the bases of separate assignments of error. Omitting formal and preliminary averments the first paragraph of this complaint alleges ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Todd v. State
...Adm'r, 1885, 104 Ind. 246, 247, 3 N.E. 866; Kahle v. Crown Oil Co., 1913, 180 Ind. 131, 141, 100 N.E. 681; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Dinius, 1913, 180 Ind. 596, 603, 103 N.E. 652; Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co, Trustee, 1931, 202 Ind. 641, 652, 177 N.E. 454; Gerber v. Friday, 1882, 87 Ind. 366......
-
Local Union No. 135, Affiliated with Intern. Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, A. F. L. v. Merchandise Warehouse Co.
...1 and that decision is now the law of the case. Stevens v. Templeton, 1910, 174 Ind. 129, 131, 91 N.E. 563; Chicago, & E. R. Co. v. Dinius, 1913, 180 Ind. 596, 603, 103 N.E. 652; Egbert v. Egbert et al., 1956, 235 Ind. 405, 132 N.E.2d 910, 914; I.L.E., Vol. 2, Appeals, § 478, p. 1 29 U.S.C.......