Wilcox v. Urschel, 15089.

• Citation: 200 N.E. 465,101 Ind.App. 627
• Decision Date: 12 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 15089.,15089.
• Parties: WILCOX v. URSCHEL.
• Court: Court of Appeals of Indiana

101 Ind.App. 627

200 N.E. 465

WILCOX

v.URSCHEL.

No. 15089.

Appellate Court of Indiana, in Banc.

March 12, 1936.

Appeal from Wabash Circuit Court; Frank O. Switzer, Judge.

Action by Hilda M. Wilcox against Albert Urschel. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

George M. Eberhart, of Huntington, and Walter S. Bent, of Wabash, for appellant.

Bowers, Feightner & Bowers, of Huntington, for appellee.

CURTIS, Chief Judge.

This was an action by the appellant against the appellee upon a complaint in one paragraph for damages on account of personal injuries received by the appellant and growing out of an automobile collision between the automobile in which she was riding on a public highway in the country and an automobile driven by a third person, said collision occurring at the intersection of said highway with another public highway. The complaint seeks to charge the appellee with the negligent cause of her injuries because the appellee as a landowner adjacent to the point of the intersection of said highways permitted a hedge fence to grow to an unlawful height on the margin or line of his lands, the further allegation being that such hedge fence obstructed the view of the appellant and her husband, who was with her, in such a manner as to prevent them seeing the automobile with which they collided as said other automobile approached said intersection upon said other highway.

To the appellant's complaint the appellee addressed a demurrer which was sustained. The appellant refused to plead further, whereupon judgment was rendered against her. From that judgment this appeal was prayed and perfected, the error assigned and relied upon being the ruling of the court upon said demurrer.

The complaint is voluminous, covering almost sixteen typewritten pages of the appellant's brief, and it would unduly extend this opinion to set it out verbatim. Enough of its allegations will be set out or abstracted to show its general scope and tenor. Some of the controlling allegations when abstracted are that at the northwest corner of appellee's farm there was a public highway along the north side and one along the west side of his farm and that said highways formed an intersection at said northwest corner of appellee's farm; that appellee had permitted a hedge fence to grow up on the margin of his land along both the west and north sides of said land and up to the corner in such a manner as to obstruct the views of travelers on said highways; that appellant riding with her husband in an automobile on the east and west highway approached said intersection going west; and that one Edward Rollett at the same time approached said intersection from the south traveling on the north and south highway. We quote subdivision 7 of the appellant's complaint as follows: “7. That said Ford automobile (car driven by appellant's husband) on said highway approached and entered said intersection of said public highways and crossing an intersection called the Urschel corner or crossing or intersection. That while said automobile, in which plaintiff was riding, was being driven and operated by said Harry R. Wilcox, and had approached and had entered and was in the act of crossing said highway and intersection, moving westwardly in and through said Urschel crossing and intersection, and when said Wilcox automobile had reached a point equal to full four-fifths of the distance westwardly across said crossing and intersection, one Edward D. Rollett, owning and operating a Whippet automobile, equipped with Whippet six cylinder engine, was moving and operating said Whippet automobile northwardly on said highway on the West side of...