Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Moneyhun

Citation44 N.E. 1106, 146 Ind. 147
Case DateOctober 21, 1896
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

146 Ind. 147
44 N.E. 1106

CLEVELAND, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.
v.
MONEYHUN.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 21, 1896.


Appeal from superior court, Madison county; William S. Diven, Judge.

Action by William T. Moneyhun, as guardian of Charles Moneyhun, against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.


Lovett & Ryan and Elliott & Elliott, for appellant. Goodykoontz & Ballard, for appellee.

JORDAN, J.

This action was commenced and prosecuted in the lower court by appellee, William T. Moneyhun, as guardian of Charles Moneyhun, a minor under the age of 21 years. The action arises out of injuries sustained by said ward, while a passenger upon a train of cars operated by the appellant, by reason of the alleged negligence of the latter. Upon the trial there was a special verdict returned by the jury, and upon the facts therein found the court adjudged that appellee was, as such guardian, entitled to recover damages for the said injuries for the benefit of the ward, and rendered judgment accordingly against appellant for $5,000, the amount mentioned in the verdict. The legal propositions submitted by the parties to this appeal arise under the facts embraced in the special finding of the jury. The following facts are all which we deem it necessary to set out in order to present the mooted questions of law herein involved: Appellee is the father and the duly-appointed guardian of Charles Moneyhun; the latter having no estate, either real or personal. This ward at the time he sustained the injuries in question was a boy of average size, intelligence, and education for one of his age, being at the time nearly 15 years of age. On June 9, 1895, after advertising the same, the railroad company (appellant herein) ran an excursion train over its road from Anderson, Ind., to Benton Harbor, Mich., and return; the train being composed of two sections, and the cars thereof being vestibuled. Appellee's ward, Charles Moneyhun, with the knowledge and consent of his father, purchased a ticket and boarded said train as a passenger, at Anderson, for the purpose of being carried as such to Benton Harbor. He entered one of the coaches of the second division, and seated himself therein. When said train arrived at Alexandria, a station about 12 miles from Anderson, the coach in which said Moneyhun was seated was detached from the train, and left upon a side track, because of a hot box, which was occasioned by reason of the box being worn and not properly packed. The passengers in this coach, including young Moneyhun, were informed by the conductor in charge of the train that they must leave this car and go into others. On entering the car to which he and other passengers had been transferred, he found all of the seats occupied and the aisle thereof and other places therein filled with passengers who were standing, and he was unable to find a seat upon the train, and for this reason accepted standing room in the car which he entered. After detaching the car from the train for the reason stated, appellant did not replace it by another in order to accommodate the passengers on the train with seats. Moneyhun, after standing in the aisle of the car until the train was near the city of Warsaw, Ind., became sick. What made him sick, however, is not disclosed by the verdict. Believing that he would be compelled to vomit, by reason of nausea, and in order to avoid soiling the car and persons standing near him, he voluntarily left the car in which he was riding, and passed out through the door of the vestibule, and went down on the lower step of the steps, leading from the ground to the car, and stood upon this lower step for a short time, holding to the railing. While so

[44 N.E. 1107]

standing upon this step his back was towards the platform of the car, and his head was leaning forward and outward. The train at the time he left the car, and while he was standing upon said step, was running at a speed of 25 miles per hour; and while so standing he was thrown off the train, by reason of the engineer suddenly, unnecessarily, and without warning, applying steam, which caused the car to give a sudden jerk. By being thrown from the train in the manner stated, Moneyhun was severely injured, being the same injury complained of by appellee. The jury also find that there was ample room in the car where he was for him to ride, without going upon the platform or steps, and, had he remained upon the inside of the coach in which he was riding, he would not have been injured; that it was not safe, but dangerous, for him to leave the car and “go onto and stand upon the car step,” as he did, while the train was running at the rate of 25 miles per hour. The jury further found that “it was not safe for a person to stand where he did, even if the train ran smooth and did not jerk.” The cars were so vestibuled as to render it safe for a passenger to pass from one car to another, and on the car door there was a printed notice...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 practice notes
  • Tippecanoe Loan & Trust Co. v. Jester, No. 21,718.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Mayo 1913
    ...v. Citizens' Co., 148 Ind. 54, 44 N. E. 927, 47 N. E. 142;Board v. Bonebrake, 146 Ind. 311, 45 N. E. 470;Cleveland, etc., Co. v. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 44 N. E. 1106, 34 L. R. A. 141;Prothero v. Citizens', etc., Co., 134 Ind. 431, 33 N. E. 765;Pennsylvania Co. v. Horton, 132 Ind. 189, 31 N......
  • Krenzer v. Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 16 Diciembre 1898
    ...182, 31 N. E. 796;Faris v. Hoberg, 134 Ind. 273, 33 N. E. 1028;Railway Co. v. Grames, 136 Ind. 39, 34 N. E. 714;Railway Co. v. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 44 N. E. 1106. The jury, in the answers to interrogatories, wholly fail to find or show, as a question of fact, whether the plaintiff was or......
  • Kerfoot v. Kessener, 28412.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 23 Febrero 1949
    ...can be added to a special finding of fact by presumption, inference or intendment. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Moneyhun, 1896, 146 Ind. 147, 44 N.E. 1106, 34 L.R.A. 141; Craig v. Bennett, 1897, 146 Ind. 574, 45 N.E. 792; Hill v. Swihart, 1897, 148 Ind. 319, 47 N.E. 705; Crowder v. ......
  • Dull v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 17 Febrero 1899
    ...from the facts found, and in such case it is the well-settled rule that the court must draw that inference. Railroad Co. v. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 44 N. E. 1106; Railroad Co. v. Costello, 9 Ind. App. 462, 36 N. E. 299;Shirk v. Railroad Co., 14 Ind. App. 126, 42 N. E. 656;Smith v. Same, 141......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
19 cases
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Cheek
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Abril 1899
    ...such inference will be accepted by the court as conclusive. Smith v. Railroad Co., 141 Ind. 92, 40 N. E. 270;Railway Co. v. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 44 N. E. 1106, and cases there cited. Therefore, under the circumstances, if [53 N.E. 646]we were inclined to draw from the facts an inference ......
  • Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company v. Lindahl
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 4 Marzo 1912
    ...by riding upon the platform. The injury was therefore the result of his own negligence. Huthcinson on Carriers, 1410; 70 L. R. A. 709; 146 Ind. 147; 34 L. R. A. 141; 84 Me. 203. 2. At the time of the injury appellee was over sixteen, nearer seventeen, years of age. When appellant requested ......
  • The Cleveland, Etc., Railway Co. v. Moneyhun, 17,937
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 21 Octubre 1896
    ...44 N.E. 1106 146 Ind. 147 The Cleveland, Etc., Railway Co. v. Moneyhun, Guardian No. 17,937Supreme Court of IndianaOctober 21, From the Madison Superior Court. Reversed. John T. Dye, Lovett & Ryan and Elliott & Elliott, for appellant. Goodykoonts & Ballard, for appellee. OPINION [146 Ind. 1......
  • Illinois Central Railroad Company v. Cheek, 18,250
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 27 Abril 1899
    ...will be accepted by the court as conclusive. Smith v. Wabash R. Co., 141 Ind. 92, 40 N.E. 270; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Moneyhun, 146 Ind. 147, 34 L. R. A. 141, 44 N.E. 1106, and cases there cited. Therefore, under the circumstances, if [53 N.E. 646] we were inclined to draw from the fact......
  • 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