Morrow v. Sweeney
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
| Writing for the Court | ROSS |
| Citation | Morrow v. Sweeney, 10 Ind.App. 626, 38 N.E. 187 (Ind. App. 1894) |
| Decision Date | 19 September 1894 |
| Parties | MORROW v. SWEENEY. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Howard county; L. J. Kirkpatrick, Judge.
Action by Edward Sweeney against Jackson Morrow for damages. There was judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Elliott & Overton, for appellant. Blacklidge, Shirley & Moon, for appellee.
The appellee filed his complaint against the appellant to recover damages for an injury to a horse by coming in contact with a barbed-wire fence placed by appellant around a lot owned by him in the city of Kokomo. Upon issue joined, there was a trial, verdict, and judgment for appellee in the sum of $45. The complaint, omitting the caption, is as follows: ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Edgington v. The Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern R. Co.
...Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 420, 2 Car. & K. 661; Lowe v. Salt Lake City, 13 Utah 91 (44 P. 1050, 57 Am. St. Rep. 708); Morrow v. Sweeney, 10 Ind.App. 626 (38 N.E. 187); Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 44; Daley v. Co., 26 Conn. 591 (68 Am. Dec. 413); Kopplekom v. Cement Pipe Co. -- Colo.App. -- (64 ......
-
Edgington v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.
...22 S. E. 615; Barnes v. Ward, 9 C. B. 420, 2 Car. & K. 661; Lowe v. Salt Lake City (Utah) 44 Pac. 1050, 57 Am. St. Rep. 708;Morrow v. Sweeney (Ind. App.) 38 N. E. 187;Marble v. Ross, 124 Mass. 44; Daley v. Railroad Co., 26 Conn. 591, 68 Am. Dec. 413; Kopplekom v. Cement Pipe Co. (Colo. App.......
-
Indianapolis Water Co. v. Harold
...St. Rep. 211;Mayhew v. Burns, 103 Ind. 328, 337, 2 N. E. 793;Carskaddon v. Mills et al., 5 Ind. App. 22, 31 N. E. 559;Morrow v. Sweeney, 10 Ind. App. 626, 38 N. E. 187. A standard text-book expresses the idea in the following language: “If an act you are contemplating, right in itself, will......
-
Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Waldrop
...he is liable for an injury to a traveler who is injured after dark. Carskadon v. Mills, 5 Ind. App. 22, 31 N.E. 559; Morrow v. Sweeney, 10 Ind.App. 626, 38 N.E. 187. Authorities are also cited to the effect that, while permission to cross the premises will not place any duty upon the owner ......