Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago And St. Louis Railway Co. v. Peck
Decision Date | 09 March 1909 |
Docket Number | 21,407 |
Citation | 87 N.E. 644,172 Ind. 19 |
Parties | Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company v. Peck |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Cass Circuit Court; Joseph M. Rabb, Special Judge.
Action by Charles M. Peck against the Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago and St. Louis Railway Company. (See same case on former appeal-- 165 Ind. 537.) From a judgment on a verdict for plaintiff for $ 4,000, defendant appeals. Transferred from the Appellate Court under § 1397 Burns 1908, Acts 1901, p. 565, § 13 (see 43 Ind.App. 316). Transferred to the Appellate Court. (Transferred again to the Supreme Court [see 44 Ind.App. 62]. Transferred again to the Appellate Court [see 172 Ind. 562]. Transferred again to the Supreme Court [see 44 Ind.App. ].
Transferred to the Appellate Court.
George E. Ross, for appellant.
Kistler & Kistler, for appellee.
The constitutional validity of section one of the employers' liability act (Acts 1893, p. 294, § 8017 Burns 1908) has been firmly settled by the Supreme Court of this State and also by the Supreme Court of the United States. The assertion of appellant's counsel that this section is unconstitutional will not serve to lodge the jurisdiction over this appeal in the Supreme Court, which, otherwise, would be in the Appellate Court. It is therefore ordered that this cause be transferred to the Appellate Court. See Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers (1907), 168 Ind. 483, 81 N.E. 212.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Goodwine v. Cadwallader
... ... Appellee relies on the ... case of Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Walton ... (1905), 165 Ind ... 94, 83 N.E. 710, and cases cited; Pittsburgh, ... etc., R. Co. v. Mahoney (1897), 148 Ind ... ...
-
Richey v. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago And St. Louis Railway Company
... ... constitutional question is raised, it cannot be regarded as ... presented for decision, and the jurisdiction is in this ... court. Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Rogers ... (1907), 168 Ind. 483, 81 N.E. 212; Pittsburgh, etc., R ... Co. v. Peck (1909), 172 Ind. 19, 87 N.E. 644 ... ...
-
Richey v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.
...decision, and the jurisdiction is in this court. Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Rogers, 168 Ind. 483, 81 N. E. 212;Pittsburgh, etc., Ry. Co. v. Peck, 172 Ind. 19, 87 N. E. 644. Where a case is so transferred, we presume that this court is expected either to ignore the constitutional question ......
-
Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Peck
...for plaintiff for $ 4,000, defendant appeals. Transferred to Supreme Court (see 43 Ind.App. 316). Transferred to Appellate Court (see 172 Ind. 19). Retransferred to Supreme Court. (Retransferred to Court [see 172 Ind. 562]. Retransferred to the Supreme Court [see 45 Ind.App. -- ]. Dismissed......