Kearns v. Burling
| Decision Date | 10 January 1896 |
| Docket Number | 1,619 |
| Citation | 42 N.E. 646,14 Ind.App. 143 |
| Parties | KEARNS v. BURLING |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
From the Benton Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to sustain the motion for a new trial.
J. D Brown, for appellant.
D Fraser and W. Isham, for appellee.
The appellant sued the appellee in three paragraphs of complaint. The first being on an account for work and labor done. The second declared on a special contract alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for the drilling of a water well on the defendant's premises; it being stipulated that the plaintiff should find an adequate supply of water, and that the defendant should pay the plaintiff $ 1.00 per foot through soil, and $ 1.50 through rock, and board the plaintiff and his help and horses while the well was being drilled; that in pursuance to the contract the plaintiff entered upon the defendant's premises and drilled the well one hundred and fifty feet deep, being forty feet through soil and one hundred and ten feet through rock; that before he reached or found water, the defendant placed obstructions in the well which could not be removed, and thereby prevented the plaintiff from completing the well, and he was compelled to abandon the same, to his damage in the sum of $ 200.00.
The third paragraph contains nearly the same averments as the second with the exception that it is alleged that some person unknown to plaintiff, placed obstructions in the well and he was compelled to abandon it. It is further averred that the plaintiff then selected a new site and commenced to drill another well in conformity to the contract; that the defendant then objected to the plaintiff drilling the second well at that time, and solicited the plaintiff to discontinue the work until the following year, to which the plaintiff consented; that in the following year the plaintiff was ready and willing to drill the well as required by the contract, when the defendant refused to permit him to do so and ordered him to keep off his premises. It is further averred that if plaintiff had been permitted to drill the well he could and would have complied with the contract and furnished an adequate supply of water; and that by the defendant's refusal and breach of the contract, plaintiff was damaged in the sum of $ 200.00.
The defendant answered the general denial, settlement, and filed paragraph...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matthews v. New York, C. & St. L.R. Co.
...from the evidence tending to support appellant's right to recover, the question should have been left to the jury. Kearns v. Burling, 14 Ind. App. 143, 42 N. E. 646.” [2] In this case appellant proved that appellee, in operating its railroad and for the protection of its property, employed ......
-
Matthews v. New York, Chicago and St. Louis Railroad Company
... ... from the evidence tending to support appellant's right to ... recover, the question should have been left to the jury ... Kearns v. Burling (1896), 14 Ind.App. 143, ... 42 N.E. 646." ... In this ... case, appellant proved that appellee, in operating its ... ...
-
Gasco v. Tracas
...from the evidence tending to support appellant's right to recover, the question should have been left to the jury. Kearns v. Burling, 14 Ind. App. 143, 42 N. E. 646. [2] The question here involved is not as to the authority that Jacobs had as agent between himself and appellee, the owner of......
-
Gasco v. Tracas
... ... inference from the evidence tending to support ... appellant's right to recover, the question should have ... been left to the jury. Kearns v. Burling ... (1896), 14 Ind.App. 143, 42 N.E. 646 ... The ... question here involved is not as to the authority that Jacobs ... ...