Johnson v. Putnam
Decision Date | 13 February 1884 |
Docket Number | 7921 |
Citation | 95 Ind. 57 |
Parties | Johnson et al. v. Putnam |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled April 19, 1884.
From the Superior Court of Marion County.
J. C Denny, D. V. Burns, H. Burns and C. S. Denny, for appellants.
A. C Ayres, E. A. Brown, J. W. Gordon, R. N. Lamb and S. M Shepard, for appellee.
Franklin, C. Elliott, J., did not participate in the decision of this cause.
This was an action of trespass, brought by the appellee against the appellants, for an assault and battery. The complaint is in two paragraphs. The first is the common law count of trespass for the assault and battery. The second sets out that the plaintiff, on the 26th day of June, 1877, entered into a written contract with George W. Julian and John O. Hopkins, a majority of the board of school trustees of the town of Irvington, to teach the public school of said town of Irvington for a term of nine months, beginning on the 3d day of September, 1877. A copy of the contract is set out as a part of this paragraph. That Sylvester Johnson, the third trustee, was notified of the meeting at which plaintiff was employed, but refused to attend the same; that said Julian and Hopkins delivered to her the keys of the school building at the time they employed her; that in pursuance of her said contract the plaintiff was about to enter upon the discharge of her duties as teacher of said public school on the 3d day of September, 1877, in said public school building, and was in the peaceable possession of the same under her said contract, when the said defendants, by force and arms, assaulted her, and then and there, with great force and violence, seized and laid hold of her, and dragged her from said school-room in said house, and pushed her through the halls and down the stairs of said building, and pushed her with great force from said house; and also, then and there, shook and pulled about the said plaintiff, and then and there bruised her by pushing her against the walls of the said building, and then and there, by violently unloosing her hand from a staple in said wall, tore the skin from the index finger thereof, to her damage, etc.
To which complaint the appellants jointly answered, first, a denial; second, that they, as the school trustees of the town of Irvington, had the possession of the school-house thereof, and that the plaintiff, wrongfully and by force and arms, broke into and took possession of the said public school-house; that they notified plaintiff that she was wrongfully in possession of said school-house, and requested her to vacate the same, and deliver the possession thereof to them as such trustees; that she refused to do so, and thereupon they took hold of her, and ejected her from said school-house, using no more force than was necessary for that purpose; that this was the grievance complained of, and none other; and concluded with a denial of all the allegations of the complaint not herein specifically admitted.
The third paragraph of the answer is to the second paragraph of the complaint, and is similar in some respects to the second, but contains the further allegations that, at the time the plaintiff wrongfully and forcibly took possession of the school-house, she claimed the right to the possession thereof, under and by virtue of the contract set out and referred to in her said second paragraph of complaint; that said contract gave her no right to the possession of the said school-house for the reasons following:
1st. That George W. Julian was not a legal school trustee of said town, and had no right to enter into said contract, of which plaintiff had notice.
2d. That these defendants, composing the board of school trustees of said town, had, before the happening of the pretended grievances complained of, to wit, on the 14th day of August, 1877, revoked and annulled said contract, due notice of which was at the time given to the plaintiff.
3d. The contract in nowise related to the possession of the school-house, but only to the services of the plaintiff as teacher.
4th. That at the time the contract was executed, the plaintiff was not licensed to teach in the public schools.
That on the morning and before the happening of the grievances complained of, they notified the plaintiff that the contract had been revoked. This paragraph then concludes as in the second.
The defendants Johnson and Shank jointly answered in three paragraphs, similar to the three paragraphs in the joint answer of all the defendants, to which answers the plaintiff severally and separately demurred to the second and third paragraphs of each.
The demurrers were sustained to the third paragraph of each, and overruled as to the second paragraph of each; exceptions were taken. Replies in denial to second paragraph.
Trial by jury, and a special verdict returned as follows:
Attest:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicago & E.R. Co. v. Bailey
...elsewhere in the record.” To the same effect, see Vansyckel v. Stewart, 77 Pa. St. 124; Waymire v. Lank, 121 Ind. 1, 22 N. E. 735;Johnson v. Putnam, 95 Ind. 57; Railroad Co. v. Spencer, 98 Ind. 186;Evans v. Insurance Co., 5 Ind. App. 198, 31 N. E. 843;Cook v. McNaughton, 128 Ind. 410, 24 N.......
-
Boyer v. Robertson
...not so found because they were not proven, and hence the verdict in such case is not defective. Wilson v. Hamilton, 75 Ind. 71;Johnson v. Putnam, 95 Ind. 57;Spraker v. Armstrong, 79 Ind. 577;Deeter v. Sellers, 102 Ind. 458, 1 N. E. 854;Railway Co. v. Buck, 116 Ind. 566, 19 N. E. 453;Railway......
-
Chicago and Erie Railroad Company v. Bailey
...elsewhere in the record." To the same effect, see Vansyckel v. Stewart, 77 Pa. 124; Waymire v. Lank, 121 Ind. 1, 22 N.E. 735; Johnson v. Putnam, 95 Ind. 57; Pittsburgh, etc., R. W. Co. v. Spencer, Ind. 186; Evans v. Queen Ins. Co., 5 Ind.App. 198, 31 N.E. 843; Cook v. McNaughton, 128 Ind. 4......
-
Kniss v. Holbrook
...could have been given and relief had under the first paragraph of answer could have been given and had under the second.” So in Johnson v. Putnam, 95 Ind. 57, it is declared that no harm would have been done by sustaining a demurrer to certain paragraphs, because, “if they were sufficient, ......