City of Logansport v. Humphrey

Decision Date03 April 1886
Docket Number12,095
Citation6 N.E. 337,106 Ind. 146
PartiesThe City of Logansport v. Humphrey
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Cass Circuit Court.

J. C. Nelson and D. C. Justice, for appellant.

S. T. McConnell and D. B. McConnell, for appellee.

OPINION

Elliott, J.

This case is here for the second time, City of Logansport v. Humphrey, 84 Ind. 467. On the return of the case into the trial court, upon a judgment of reversal, the appellee made some amendments to his complaint, and that court overruled a demurrer addressed to it by the appellant.

We are not aided by a brief from the appellee, and our unaided investigation has not enabled us to find any substantial difference between the present complaint and the one presented to us on the former appeal. The slight amendments made to it have not materially changed its character, and it is substantially the same complaint held bad when the case was here the first time. Our conclusion is, that the former judgment requires us to declare the complaint bad.

It is a familiar rule that a judgment pronounced on appeal becomes, as to all points directly decided, the law of the case throughout all its subsequent stages. The effect of this rule cannot be evaded by making amendments to a pleading held bad, which do not substantially change its character.

The decision on the former appeal requires that the judgment be reversed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Pring
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 26, 1911
    ...pleading, but this is not necessarily so, of course, as to new or additional questions presented by this appeal. City of Logansport v. Humphrey, 106 Ind. 146, 6 N. E. 337;Keller v. Gaskill, 20 Ind. App. 502, 50 N. E. 363;Brunson v. Henry et al., 152 Ind. 310, 52 N. E. 407;Ft. Wayne Iron & S......
  • Indiana Union Traction Company v. Pring
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 26, 1911
    ... ... Avers that ... the office of said Mahoney was in the Union Block in the city ... of Anderson, and avers the proximity of the office rooms of ... the dispatcher to Baldwin and ... course, as to new or additional questions presented by this ... appeal. City of Logansport v. Humphrey ... (1886), 106 Ind. 146, 6 N.E. 337; Keller v ... Gaskill (1898), 20 ... ...
  • Shirk v. Lingeman
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 5, 1901
    ...which does not substantially change the character of the pleading does not take the case out of the rule. City of Logansport v. Humphrey, 106 Ind. 146, 6 N. E. 337;Nickless v. Pearson, 126 Ind. 477, 26 N. E. 478;Poulson v. Simmons, 126 Ind. 227, 26 N. E. 152;Insurance Co. v. Houser, 111 Ind......
  • Egbert v. Egbert
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1956
    ...but not so as to new or additional questions arising upon the second trial and presented by this appeal. City of Logansport v. Humphrey [1886], 106 Ind. 146, 6 N.E. 337; Keller v. Gaskill [1898], 20 Ind.App. 502, 50 N.E. 363; Brunson v. Henry [1898], 152 Ind. 310, 52 N.E. 407.' Ft. Wayne Ir......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT