King v. Ransburg
| Decision Date | 15 April 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 16731.,16731. |
| Citation | 40 N.E.2d 999,111 Ind.App. 523 |
| Parties | KING et al. v. RANSBURG. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Boone County; Ernest R. Stewart, Judge.
On petition for rehearing.
Petition denied.
For original opinion, see 39 N.E.2d 822.White, Wright & Boleman and Geo. C. Forrey, III, all of Indianapolis, and Rogers & Smith, of Lebanon, Fenton, Steers, Beasley & Klee, of Indianapolis, for Philip Carey Co.
Seth Ward and Richard Smith, both of Indianapolis, and Scifres & Hollingsworth, of Lebanon, for appellee.
Appellants have filed herein their petition for rehearing in which appellant the Philip Carey Company complains that this court in its opinion did not discuss its tendered instruction numbered one. Appellant Carey Company did tender an instruction numbered one which was refused by the court. This instruction was a peremptory one to return a verdict for said appellant. It raised no question other than the sufficiency of the evidence, which question was fully considered and discussed by this court in its original opinion.
No questions are presented by appellants' petition for rehearing which were not fully considered in the original opinion. Upon re-examination of the record we find no reversible error.
Petition for rehearing denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gamble v. Lewis
...on the voir dire examination by asking questions of the prospective jurors concerning an insurance carrier. King v. Ransburg, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 523, 533, 39 N.E.2d 822,40 N.E.2d 999, and cases therein cited. Without objection the witnesses Kenneth Horney and H. P. Bray detailed facts from ......
-
Gamble v. Lewis
...asking questions of the prospective jurors concerning an insurance carrier. King v. Ransburg, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 523, 533, 39 N.E.2d 822, 40 N.E.2d 999, and cases therein cited. Without objection witnesses Kenneth Horney and H. P. Bray detailed facts from which any reasonable juror would ha......
-
Neuwelt v. Roush, 17793.
...circumstances to say whether such negligence was a contributory cause of his injuries. Fishman v. Eads, supra; King v. Ransburg, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 523, 39 N.E.2d 822,40 N.E.2d 999; Connor v. Jones, supra. In Cole Motor Car Co. v. Ludorff, 1916, 61 Ind.App. 119, 125, 111 N.E. 447, 450, this......
-
Neuwelt v. Roush
...negligence was a contributory cause of his injuries. Fishman v. Eads, supra; King v. Ransburg, 1942, 111 Ind.App. 523, 39 N.E.2d 822, 40 N.E.2d 999; v. Jones, supra. In Cole Motor Car Co. v. Ludorff, 1916, 61 Ind.App. 119, 125, 111 N.E. 447, 450, this court said: 'Likewise had she looked an......