Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Moore
| Decision Date | 01 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | 20,995 |
| Citation | 84 N.E. 540,170 Ind. 328 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Moore, Receiver, et al |
Original Opinion of October 18, 1907, Reported at: 170 Ind 328.
In his brief on petition for rehearing, counsel for appellee, while stating that it is apparent from the opinion that this case has received painstaking consideration, suggests that it seems that the opinion and judgment of this court proceed largely, if not entirely, on grounds not presented. So far as the examination of the testimony set out in the record is concerned, it may be admitted that our consideration has gone beyond the briefs, but our action in that particular was prompted, not by a purpose to search for grounds of reversal but, because the intricate and perplexing questions of fact made a study of the transcript of the evidence necessary to an understanding of the facts. We were compelled to study the bill of exceptions, and, having done so, we were not at liberty to disregard what our eyes perceived as to the facts in their true relation to each other. Where resort to the record is necessary, the case will be determined by the record, and in such a case the court will not regard itself as governed by the conceptions of counsel on either side as to the nature of the controlling facts. Big Creek Stone Co. v. Seward (1896), 144 Ind. 205, 42 N.E. 464; Scott v. City of Laporte (1904), 162 Ind. 34; State, ex rel. v Board, etc. (1906), 167 Ind. 276, 78 N.E. 1016. As to our observations upon the case generally, we may say, in the language of Big Creek Stone Co. v. Seward, supra, that "if the court were limited to the arguments and reasoning of counsel in its decision of cases, to the exclusion of its own observations, many cases would lead us far from what we understand to be the true object of the court."
In the brief referred to, counsel call attention, among other matters, to what is claimed are inaccuracies in the court's statement as to the height of the grade put in by the surety company, as to where work was done by it, as to the misleading effect of the prior work done by McNerney, of changes supposed to have been required by the railroad company on account thereof, and of the representations made while the work was in progress. Without going to the transcript of the evidence, which is very long and at times difficult to understand, we may admit, for the sake of the argument, that we have been under a misapprehension to the extent suggested by counsel, but an examination of the original opinion will show that we by no means rest our conclusion on the matters referred to, and we should not be understood as holding that the surety company prima facie stands charged with the consequences of knowledge at any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Life Ins. Co. v. Thiel
...1924, 81 Ind.App. 682, 143 N.E. 169; or as "resident vice principal", Cleveland, etc. R. Co. v. Moore, 1907, 170 Ind. 328, 82 N.E. 52, 84 N.E. 540. In of the cases cited by the appellee do we find authority for holding that a local agent for a life insurance company who engages in solicitin......
-
Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Moore
... ... as the assignee of McNerney or as surety pursuant to notice by the railway company, for if said surety company is to be charged with the consequences ... ...