Chicago & Indiana Coal Railway Co. v. Hunter
Decision Date | 01 May 1891 |
Docket Number | 14,857 |
Citation | 27 N.E. 477,128 Ind. 213 |
Parties | The Chicago and Indiana Coal Railway Company v. Hunter et al |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Benton Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
S. H Spooner, W. H. Darroch and U. Z. Wiley, for appellant.
E. P Hammond, W. B. Austin, M. H. Walker, G. H. Gray and T. C Annabal, for appellees.
This was a proceeding by the appellant for the appropriation of certain lands in Newton county belonging to appellee Elijah Hunter for right of way.
Appraisers, duly appointed, having made their report, both parties filed exceptions to the award. The cause was taken on change of venue to Benton county, where it was tried by a jury. On the third day of the trial, but before the appellees had closed their evidence, the appellant filed its written motion, supported by affidavits, for leave to amend its articles of appropriation. This motion the court overruled. Appellant insists that the court erred therein, and it is over this question the principal controversy is waged. Appellees insist that the question is not properly in the record, but in this they are in error. It was properly saved and is fairly presented.
As a rule, the granting of leave to amend pleadings, after the issues are closed, and especially pending the trial, is a matter resting largely in the discretion of the trial court. It is only in cases where there seems to have been an abuse of that discretion, apparently resulting in injustice, that this court will interfere.
In the case of Chicago, etc., R. W. Co. v. Jones, 103 Ind. 386, 6 N.E. 8, the court said:
It will be necessary for us to examine the entire record to determine whether or not, in the language of the court just quoted, "substantial injustice appears to have been done." If, from such an examination, it appears that no injustice resulted to appellant by reason of the refusal to permit the amendment, we will not be justified in reversing the cause upon that ground.
The exceptions filed by the appellee Hunter contained the following:
There was evidence showing that on the south line of the land of appellee, Elijah Hunter, there was a ditch running east and west, in which the water flowed to the west. On the north side of this ditch there was an embankment some two feet high, made to prevent the water from overflowing from the ditch and running north on said appellee's land, the flow of the water being naturally northward from the ditch. The appellant, in making its railroad, cut this embankment on the right of way proposed to be appropriated in this action, and there was evidence tending to show that it did not securely repair the breach, and that, as a consequence, the water, in times of freshets, broke through or over the opening and overflowed a large quantity of appellee's land. There was, however, conflict in the evidence as to the condition in which appellant left the embankment, there being testimony upon its part tending to show that at the time of the trial the embankment had been restored to its normal condition.
The amendment which appellant proposed to make is as follows:
Those portions of the exceptions quoted were evidently...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Citizens' St. R. Co. v. Heath
...Fox, 113 Ind. 205, 14 N. E. 541;Hay v. State, 58 Ind. 337;Railway Co. v. Morgan, 132 Ind. 430, 31 N. E. 661, 32 N. E. 85;Railway Co. Hunter, 128 Ind. 213, 27 N. E. 477;Bever v. North, 107 Ind. 544, 8 N. E. 576. The third paragraph of reply is claimed to have been insufficient for defects th......
-
Citizens Street Railroad Co. v. Heath
... ... HEATH No. 3,747 Court of Appeals of Indiana November 26, 1901 ... ... Transfer ... In ... Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McDaniel, 134 Ind ... 166, 172, 32 ... 430, 31 N.E. 661; Chicago, ... etc., R. Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ind. 213, 27 N.E ... 477; Bever v. North, 107 ... ...
-
Todd v. Crail
...of the court and cannot be reviewed here. Section 397, Burns' Ann. St. 1901; Rogers v. State, 99 Ind. 218, 226;Railway Co. v. Hunter, 128 Ind. 213, 214, 27 N. E. 477;Lindley v. Sullivan, 133 Ind. 588, 589, 32 N. E. 738, 33 N. E. 361. The legal sufficiency of the special finding is not befor......
-
Todd v. Crail
... ... Beach (1884), 96 Ind. 143, 155; Chicago, etc., ... R. Co. v. Sutton (1892), 130 Ind. 405, 411, 30 ... 99 Ind. 218, 226; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v ... Hunter (1891), 128 Ind. 213, 214, 27 N.E. 477; ... Lindley v ... ...