The Ohio And Mississippi Railway Company v. Heaton
Decision Date | 28 November 1893 |
Docket Number | 15,316 |
Citation | 35 N.E. 687,137 Ind. 1 |
Parties | The Ohio and Mississippi Railway Company v. Heaton |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for Rehearing Overruled Feb. 15, 1894.
From the Washington Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed.
H. D McMullen and H. R. McMullen, for appellant.
J. A Zaring, M. B. Hottel, B. K. Elliott, and W. F. Elliott, for appellee.
The appellee filed his complaint against the appellant in the court below, claiming damages alleged to have been received by him while engaged as engineer on one of appellant's trains, by reason of the derailment of his train, due to a misplaced switch, caused by a defective switch-lock.
The appellant moved the court to require the appellee to make his complaint more specific in three respects, which motion was sustained as to the first two specifications, and overruled as to the third.
A demurrer to the complaint having then been overruled, the appellant answered in general denial.
The cause was tried by a jury, who returned a general verdict for the appellee, together with answers to certain interrogatories.
The appellant's motion for judgment on the answers to interrogatories, and also a motion for a new trial, were overruled.
Appellant thereupon objected to the jurisdiction of the court, by reason of an act of the General Assembly changing the times of holding said court. These objections were also overruled and judgment was entered upon the verdict.
The errors assigned and discussed in this appeal relate--
1. To the sufficiency of the complaint, and the overruling of the demurrer thereto, and of the motion to make more specific.
2. To the overruling of the motion for judgment upon the answers to interrogatories.
3. To the overruling of the motion for a new trial.
4. To the overruling of the objections to the jurisdiction of the court.
As to the sufficiency of the complaint, our statute, section 338, R. S. 1881, requires that the complaint shall contain, amongst other things, "A statement of the facts constituting a cause of action, in plain and concise language, without repetition, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended."
The complaint, so far as we need set it out, is as follows:
The complaint alleges a state of facts that show that the appellee was free from contributory negligence. It is, besides, expressly averred that he was without fault or negligence, and that he had no knowledge of the defective condition of the switch and lock.
Counsel for appellant indulge in much verbal criticism of the complaint; but we think that the statutory requirements are substantially observed in its composition, and that it is a plain statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, and in such manner as to enable a person of common understanding to know what is intended.
The evident theory of the complaint is that the injury to appellee was caused by the defective lock. The use of the lock was to hold the lever in the slot on the target, and thus hold the rails of the switch in their place; but, by reason of its defective condition, the lock did not hold the lever in the slot, and did not, therefore, hold the rails in their place, but allowed them to move and become displaced by the passage of trains over the track. Yet counsel find something absurd in the statement that "by the insufficiency of said lock, as aforesaid, to hold the switch in its place, it gave way, and said switch was thrown open by the weight of the engine and by the wheels passing over it."
A thin piece of steel, cut into a delicate key, may turn the bolt of a mammoth lock, which, in turn, shall hold the ponderous gate of a fortress. Small as the bit of steel is, it is yet the key to the fortress, and holds with ease what a thousand men could not maintain in position. So the lock in this case, as shown in the complaint, by holding the lever in its place upon the target, also holds the switch in position, and even...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wabash R. Co. v. Beedle
...R. Co. v. Ferris, 6 Ind. App. 30, 31, 32 N. E. 112;City of Huntington v. Stuver, 41 Ind. App. 171, 173, 83 N. E. 518;Ohio & Miss. R. Co. v. Heaton, 137 Ind. 1, 35 N. E. 687;Pittsburgh, etc., R. Co. v. Simons, 168 Ind. 333, 79 N. E. 911;Island Coal Co. v. Clemmitt, 19 Ind. App. 21, 49 N. E. ......
-
Lake Erie & W.R. Co. v. Grover
...524;Backman v. Cooper, 20 Ind. App. 173;50 N. E. 394;Rouver v. Miller, 16 Ind. App. 519, 44 N. E. 51, and 45 N. E. 674;Railway Co. v. Heaton, 137 Ind. 1, 35 N. E. 687. The conflict between the general verdict and facts specially found must be so marked that they cannot be reconciled upon an......
-
Lake Erie & Western Railroad Company v. Graver
... ... 394; Rouyer v. Miller, 16 Ind.App. 519, 44 ... N.E. 51; Ohio, etc., R. Co. v. Heaton, 137 ... Ind. 1, 35 N.E. 687. The conflict ... Co., 141 Ind. 92, 40 N.E. 270: "The question of ... care at railway crossings as affecting the traveler, is no ... longer, as a rule, a ... ...
-
Cole Bros. v. Wood
...be free from fault, and ignorant of his master's fault, if the action is to lie.” Beach, Contrib. Neg. p. 350, § 123; Railway Co. v. Heaton (Ind. Sup.) 35 N. E. 687. Unless these facts are alleged in the complaint, it is insufficient on demurrer. Once again we recur to the theory of the com......