Thickstun v. The Baltimore And Ohio Railroad Co.
| Decision Date | 10 May 1889 |
| Docket Number | 13,708 |
| Citation | 21 N.E. 323,119 Ind. 26 |
| Parties | Thickstun v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Clark Circuit Court.
Judgment affirmed.
W. B. Goodwin, for appellant.
A. Dowling, for appellee.
The appellant recovered judgment for twenty-five dollars in the court below, and moved for a new trial, assigning as causes that the finding is contrary to law, and that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Under the settled rule, no question as to the amount of the recovery is presented by this motion for a new trial. Hyatt v. Mattingly, 68 Ind. 271; Langohr v. Smith, 81 Ind. 495; McElhoes v. Dale, 81 Ind. 67; Millikan v. Patterson, 91 Ind. 515; Fort Wayne, etc., R. W. Co. v. Beyerle, 110 Ind. 100, 11 N.E. 6. As the sole contention is that the recovery was not for a sum to which the appellant claims he was entitled, we must affirm the judgment, because the question is not presented as the law requires.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Syndicate Improvement Company v. Bradley
... ... is contrary to law. (Thickstun v. R. R. Co., 21 N.E ... 323; Hillebrant v. Brewer, 6 Tex. 45; Jacobs v ... ...
-
City of Fort Wayne v. Capehart-Farnsworth Corp.
...1881, 80 Ind. 316, 323; Ringle v. First National Bank of Kendallville, 1886, 107 Ind. 425, 430, 8 N.E. 236; Thickstun v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co., 1888, 119 Ind. 26, 21 N.E. 323; Davis v. Montgomery, 1889, 123 Ind. 587, 589, 24 N.E. 367. It follows that if, under the evidence, appellee......
-
City of Indianapolis v. Woessner
... ... Montgomery (1889), 123 Ind. 587, 24 N.E. 367; ... Thickstun v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co ... (1888), 119 Ind. 26, 21 N.E. 323. The ... ...
-
Maxwell v. The Board of Commissioners of Fulton County
... ... In the ... case of Reckner v. Warner, 22 Ohio St. 275, ... it was held that a law which required a party to give bond, ... ...