Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Co. v. Hall
| Decision Date | 19 February 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,066 |
| Citation | 93 Ind. 245 |
| Parties | The Louisville, New Albany and Chicago Railway Company v. Hall |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Putnam Circuit Court.
Affirmed, at appellant's costs.
A. D. Thomas, for appellant.
L. J. Coppage, for appellee.
Action by the appellee against the appellant to recover damages for killing appellee's horse by the appellant's locomotive and cars. The venue on the appellant's motion was changed from the Montgomery Circuit Court to the court below. The trial resulted in a finding and judgment for the appellee. The overruling of the appellant's demurrer to the appellee's complaint is the only ruling complained of.
The complaint charged that the railroad was not fenced at the place where the animal entered upon the track and was killed. This was sufficient. Detroit, etc., R. R. Co. v. Blodgett, 61 Ind. 315; Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Penn, 90 Ind. 284. If the railroad could not properly have been fenced at the place in question, that was a matter of defence. It was not necessary for the complaint to allege that it could have been fenced at such place. Fort Wayne, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mussetter, 48 Ind. 286; Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Lyon, 55 Ind. 477; Jeffersonville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Lyon, 72 Ind. 107; Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Penn, supra.
The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled.
Affirmed, at appellant's costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cent. Indiana Ry. Co. v. Smith
...of defense. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Brannegan, supra; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Hart, 2 Ind. App. 130, 28 N. E. 218;Louisville, etc., Ry. Co. v. Hall, 93 Ind. 245. The law, as it existed prior to the act of 1885, with reference to such liability of railroad companies, was not affected by......
-
The Louisville, New Albany And Chicago Railway Co. v. Hughes
... ... If it could not properly be fenced ... there, this is matter of defence, and the burden of proving ... it is on the defendant. Louisville, etc., R. W. Co ... v. Kious, 82 Ind. 357; Terre Haute, etc., R. R ... Co. v. Penn, 90 Ind. 284; Louisville, etc., ... R. W. Co. v. Hall, 93 Ind. 245; Fort Wayne, ... etc., R. R. Co. v. Herbold, 99 Ind. 91; ... Evansville, etc., R. R. Co. v. Mosier, 101 ... Ind. 597; Cincinnati, etc., R. W. Co. v ... Parker, 109 Ind. 235, 9 N.E. 787; Chicago, etc., ... R. R. Co. v. Modesitt, 124 Ind. 212, 24 N.E ... Under ... ...
-
Chicago & E.R. Co. v. Brannegan
...where the company could not fence, the burden was on the defendant to prove that fact. Railroad Co. v. Lindley, 75 Ind. 426;Railway Co. v. Hall, 93 Ind. 245; Railroad Co. v. Herbold, 99 Ind. 91; Railroad Co. v. Mosier, 101 Ind. 597, 1 N. E. Rep. 197; Railroad Co. v. Parker, 109 Ind. 235, 9 ......
-
The Chicago And Erie Railroad Company v. Brannegan
... ... Indianapolis, etc., R. W. Co. v ... Lindley, 75 Ind. 426; Louisville, etc., R. W ... Co., v. Hall, 93 Ind. 245; Fort Wayne, ... etc., R. R ... ...