Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of Indiana, Volume 96
Indiana. Supreme Court, Horace E. Carter, Albert Gallatin Porter, Gordon Tanner, Benjamin Harrison, Michael Crawford Kerr, James Buckley Black, Augustus Newton Martin, Francis Marion Dice, John Worth Kern, John Lewis Griffiths, Sidney Romelee Moon, Charles Frederick Remy
Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1884
"With tables of the cases and principal matters" (varies).
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
action affirmed agreement alleged amount answer appellant appellant's appellee appellee's application assigned authority averred bond cause charge Circuit Court cited City claim commissioners complaint conclusion consideration considered contract costs counsel cross debt decision decree deed defendant demurrer duty entitled error et al evidence ex rel exceptions execution facts filed finding follows further give given held Indianapolis instruction interest issue judg judgment June jury justice land March matter ment mortgage motion necessary negligence notes notice objection opinion overruled paid paragraph party payment person petition plaintiff pleading possession present proceedings proper purchase question real estate reason received record referred refused relator rendered reversed rule sold statute sufficient suit supra sustained taken term thereof tion trial trustee verdict witness
Page 224 - Every action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except that an executor or administrator, a trustee of an express trust, or a person expressly authorized by statute, may sue, without joining with him the person for whose benefit the action is prosecuted. A person, with whom or in whose name, a contract is made for the benefit of another, is a trustee of an express trust, within the meaning of this section.
Page 455 - An amount of property not exceeding in value six hundred dollars, owned by any resident householder, shall not be liable to sale on execution or any other final process from a Court, for any debt growing out of or founded upon a contract, express or implied, after the taking effect of this Act.
Page 69 - ... remanded, with instructions to the court below to sustain the motion for a new trial, and for further proceedings.
Page 359 - There must be reasonable evidence of negligence, but where the thing is shown to be under the management of the defendant or his servants, and the accident is such as, in the ordinary course of things, does not happen if those who have the management of the machinery use proper care, it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation by the defendant, that the accident arose from want of care.
Page 289 - State, not exceeding in value fifteen hundred dollars, shall be exempt from forced sale on execution or any other final process from a court, for any debt contracted after the adoption of this Constitution.
Page 66 - In this case it is admitted that the plaintiff in error has escaped, and is not within the control of the court below, either actually, by being in custody, or constructively, by being out on bail. If we affirm the judgment, he is not likely to appear to submit to his sentence. If we reverse it and order a new trial, he will appear or not, as he may consider most for his interest. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to hear and decide what may prove to be only a moot case.
Page 592 - July, 1819; and on divers other days and times, as well before as after, with force and arms, at...
Page 355 - The argument is not sound which seeks to trace this immediate cause of the death through the previous stages of mental aberration, physical suffering, and eight months' disease and medical treatment to the original accident on the railroad. Such a course of possible or even logical argument would lead back to that " great first cause least understood," in which the train of all causation ends.
Page 358 - I think the plaintiff has made a prima facie case by proving his going on the coach, the accident, and the damage he has suffered. It now lies on the other side to show that the coach was as good a coach as could be made, and that the driver was as skillful a driver as could anywhere be found. What other evidence can the plaintiff give?