Pittsburgh, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, No. 4,973.
Docket Nº | No. 4,973. |
Citation | 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666 |
Case Date | December 16, 1904 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
34 Ind.App. 324
72 N.E. 666
PITTSBURGH, C., C. & ST. L. RY. CO.
v.
WILSON et al.
No. 4,973.
Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.
Dec. 16, 1904.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Blackford County; E. C. Vaughn, Judge.
Action by James W. Wilson and another against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.
G. E. Ross, for appellant. W. J. Houck, Waltz & Secrest, and W. M. Amsden, for appellees.
BLACK, J.
In the first specification in the appellant's assignment of errors it is sought to question the action of the court below “in overruling the demurrer to the third paragraph of the amended complaint,” and in the second specification the appellant assigns error “in overruling the demurrer to the fourth paragraph of the amended complaint.” The court sustained a demurrer to the first and second paragraphs of the complaint. The demurrer which was overruled, omitting the title and the signature, was as follows: “The defendant demurs to the plaintiffs' third and fourth paragraphs of complaint, and, for cause of demurrer, says said amended paragraphs of complaint do not, nor does either paragraph thereof, state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.” The demurrer was addressed to the two paragraphs jointly, and an assignment of error purporting to
[72 N.E. 667]
question the action of the court in overruling the demurrer as to one of the paragraphs does not present any matter for decision here.
It is also assigned that the court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial. The appellees, James W. Wilson and Catherine Crumley, sought damages for the destruction of a private crossing from the southern portion of their farm over the appellant's railway to the northern portion of the farm, basing their right to such crossing upon a provision in a deed of conveyance of the railroad's right of way, 80 feet in width, through the lands, to the appellant's grantor, another railroad company; the appellees holding, subject to the right of the railroad company, as tenants in common in equal shares; Catherine, one of the grantors in the deed, having her portion as an heir of her father, and James having his portion under a conveyance from another grantor in the deed, holding as heir of the same father. The land in question consisted of 120 acres, over which the railroad ran, dividing the land into portions about equal in size; the buildings being upon the portion south of the railroad, and the equal portion north of the railroad being the most fertile and valuable part of the land. By the deed executed in 1883 the grantors therein conveyed and warranted the strip of land 80 feet in width to the Chicago, St. Louis & Pittsburgh Railroad Company, its successors and assigns, forever. It purported to be made in consideration of $1 in hand paid, and it contained the following: “Said company to make and maintain a good wire or other fence on both sides of the strip of land hereby conveyed; if wire, the same to have six wires with a board at top; and also to make for the grantors one farm crossing, together with all legal and equitable rights, claims and demands therein and thereto.” At the time of the execution of the deed the railroad had been in existence for some years, having been constructed when the land was owned and occupied by the father of the appellees, and there was a good private farm crossing, constructed by the railroad company;...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Columbia Club, Inc. v. American Fletcher Realty Corp., 49A02-9901-CV-61.
...so long as the covenant concerns the easement. E.g., Conduitt, 26 N.E. at 198; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Wilson, 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666, 667 (1904). Also, privity of estate may be found between the original covenantors even where they did not hold simultaneous ......
-
Moseley v. Bishop, 4-983
...covenant concerns the easement. E.g., Conduitt Page 778 v. Ross, supra; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Wilson, (1904) 34 Ind.App. 324 72 N.E. 666. Finally, privity of estate may be found between the original covenantors even where they did not hold simultaneous interests ......
-
Williams v. Ind. Rail Rd. Co., 77A04–1311–CC–580.
...an obligation on a remote grantee to maintain and replace the tile); Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666, 667–68 (1904) (holding that a railroad, which was subject to a real covenant to make and maintain a farm crossing over the railroad'......
-
Williams v. Ind. Rail Rd. Co., Court of Appeals Cause No. 77A04-1311-CC-580
...an obligation on a remote grantee to maintain and replace the tile); Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 34 Ind. App. 324, 72 N.E. 666, 667-68 (1904) (holding that a railroad, which was subject to a real covenant to make and maintain a farm crossing over the railroad......
-
Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co. v. Beisel, No. 18264
...108 N.E. 873; Pittsburgh etc., R. Co. v. Kearns, 1921 (Transferred) 191 Ind. 1, 128 N.E. 42; Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 1904, 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666; Pittsburgh etc., R. Co. v. Wilson, 1910, 46 Ind.App. 444, 91 N.E. 725 (Retrial); Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. McEwen, 1904, 35 Ind......
-
Columbia Club, Inc. v. American Fletcher Realty Corp., No. 49A02-9901-CV-61.
...as the covenant concerns the easement. E.g., Conduitt, 26 N.E. at 198; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Wilson, 34 Ind.App. 324, 72 N.E. 666, 667 (1904). Also, privity of estate may be found between the original covenantors even where they did not hold simultaneous inte......
-
Harting v. Vandalia Coal Co., No. 7,856.
...N.E. 134]Terre Haute & Indianapolis R. R. Co. v. McCorkle, 140 Ind. 613-616, 40 N. E. 62; P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wilson, 34 Ind. App. 324, 72 N. E. 666. The rule still holds that it is the same questions that were ruled upon by the trial court, presented here in substantially ......
-
Moseley v. Bishop, No. 4-983
...concerns the easement. E.g., Conduitt Page 778 v. Ross, supra; Pittsburg, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Ry. v. Wilson, (1904) 34 Ind.App. 324 72 N.E. 666. Finally, privity of estate may be found between the original covenantors even where they did not hold simultaneous interests in th......