James v. Lake Erie & W. Ry. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1897 |
| Citation | 48 N.E. 222,148 Ind. 615 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | JAMES v. LAKE ERIE & W. RY. CO. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Madison county. A. Ellison, Judge.
Action by John H. James against the Lake Erie & Western Railway Company. There was a judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Wood & Ellis, for appellant. W. E. Hackedorn, John B. Cockrum, and Chipman, Keltner & Hendee, for appellee.
This was an action by the appellant for damages for the refusal of the appellee to transport over its railway, from Newcastle, in Henry county, to Cambridge City, in Wayne county, the remains of his deceased wife. The action, as originally instituted, was upon a complaint for $1,000 as damages, and, upon a trial resulting in a judgment in favor of this appellant for $400, was appealed to the appellate court (10 Ind. App. 550, 35 N. E. 395, and 38 N. E. 192), where the complaint was held to be insufficient to state a cause of action, in that it disclosed that no proper transit permit was obtained from the health officer at the point from which said remains had been shipped, to wit, Anderson, Ind.; that the pretended permit held by the appellant failed to disclose the name of the physician attending upon the deceased at the time of her death, as required by rule 5 of the state board of health, adopted pursuant to the authority of section 5, p. 16, Acts 1891. Upon the reversal of the judgment as aforesaid, the complaint was amended so as to state differently the excuse offered by the railway agent for not accepting said remains for transportation, and in other unimportant respects, including an increase in the amount of damages demanded. To the amended complaint the lower court sustained appellee's demurrer, and that ruling is assigned as the only error for review. It is not claimed, nor is there reason to claim, that the cause of action now pleaded differs from that pleaded in the original complaint, or that it is alleged with any substantial difference. The only questions now discussed are those passed upon in the former appeal, and they all relate to the requirement of the state board of health that a transit permit shall state the name of the attending physician. Not only as an authority or precedent, but as establishing the law of the case, do we accept the decision of the appellate court upon the former appeal. In the recent case of Board v. Bonebrake (Ind. Sup.) 45 N. E. 470, we had occasion to collect the numerous decisions in this state upon the law of the case; and, without variation, they hold that the judgment upon appeal rules the case, throughout all of its subsequent stages, upon the questions decided. In Lillie v. Trentman, 130 Ind. 16, 29 N. E. 405, it was said that “the principles of law established on the former appeal, so far as applicable, remain the law of the case...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hatfield v. Cummings
...cannot be changed upon a second or subsequent appeal.” See, also, Board v. Bonebrake, 146 Ind. 311, 45 N. E. 470;James v. Railway Co., 148 Ind. 615, 48 N. E. 222;Supply Co. v. Riter, 146 Ind. 521, 45 N. E. 697. The motion in arrest of judgment was not made until after the motion for a new t......
-
Hatfield v. Cummings
... ... as receiver, to enforce the collection of a note executed by ... James M. Hatfield, one of the appellants, and to foreclose ... two mortgages, given by Hatfield and his ... also, Board, etc., v. Bonebrake, 146 Ind ... 311, 45 N.E. 470; James v. Lake Erie, etc., R ... Co., 148 Ind. 615, 48 N.E. 222; Jeffersonville, ... etc., Co. v. Riter, 146 ... ...