Cincinnati, I. St. L.&C. Ry. Co. v. Case
Decision Date | 27 February 1890 |
Citation | 23 N.E. 797,122 Ind. 310 |
Parties | Cincinnati, I. St. L. & C. Ry. Co. v. Case. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Benton county; John C. Nelson, Special Judge.
Action by Horace S. Case against the Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis & Chicago Railway Company. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appealed.
Straight & Wiley and John T. Dye, for appellant. M. H. Walker, J. H. Phares, Daniel Fraser, E. P. Hammond, and W. B. Austin, for appellee.
This was an action by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages for negligent delay in shipping appellee's cattle from the town of Fowler to the city of Indianapolis. So much of the contract under which the cattle were shipped as is material to the controversy here is as follows:
The complaint is based upon the above contract, and alleges, in substance, that on the 11th day of December, 1885, at the town of Fowler, the appellee delivered to the appellant, a common carrier of livestock for hire, 51 head of cattle, to be carried by appellant for appellee in three cars from said town of Fowler to the city of Indianapolis, and there to be delivered for the appellee to Jeffrey, Herriott & Co., who were commission merchants, and who were to sell said property for appellee; that appellee agreed to pay appellant $22 per car for transporting said cattle; that, on delivery of said cattle as aforesaid, appellant executed and delivered to appellee a bill of lading for said cattle, a copy of which is filed with the complaint; that appellee performed all the conditions of said bill of lading on his part, but that appellant did not perform the conditions of said bill of lading on its part, in this, to-wit, that said appellant, after receiving said cattle on board its cars at the town of Fowler, without any fault on the part of the appellee, carelessly and negligently failed to move said cars upon which said catle were loaded from 6 o'clock p. m. on the 11th day of December, 1885, until 4 o'clock a. m. on the 12th day of December, 1885; that if said cattle had been shipped by appellant when delivered, as they might have been, by a train which then left for the city of Indianapolis, said cattle would have arrived at Indianapolis in good condition at 4 o'clock a. m. on December 12th, and would have been ready for the market on that morning, but in consequence of said delay in shipping they did not arrive at Indianapolis in time for the market on said day, which was Saturday, and in consequence thereof there was no market for said cattle until the following Monday; that between said Saturday morning and the Monday morning following there was a fall in the price of cattle in said market of the sum of seven dollars on each head; that, on account of the delay in shipping said cattle, they were delayed in being fed for the period of 11 hours, by reason of which they became excited and unmanageable, and hooked, tramped upon, and crowded each other, by reason of which 15 head of said cattle were rendered wholly worthless, and all the others were rendered unsalable, when they arrived at Indianapolis, for the period of one week, and by reason of all which appellee was damaged in the sum of $1,000. The appellant filed a demurrer to this complaint for want of sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action, which was overruled, and it excepted. Upon issue formed, the cause was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict for the appellee. Appellant moved in arrest of judgment, which was overruled, and an exception taken. Appellant then filed its motion and reasons for a new trial, which were overruled, and exception reserved. Judgment on verdict.
The first and second errors assigned here call in question the sufficiency of the complaint, and the third questions the propriety of the ruling of the circuit court in overruling the motion for a new trial. The first objection to the complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial