The Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company v. Pinchin. In the case of Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co. v. Carper, ante, p. 26, the authorities on this subject are collected, and it is unnecessary for us to again consider them. One important fact found in favor of a defendant may sometimes entitle him to a judgment on the answers of the jury to special interrogatories. It is apparent, therefore, that a defendant may obtain a judgment with less difficulty than a plaintiff who has the burden of proof. Rice v. City of Evansville, 108 Ind. 7 (58 Am. R. 22). In the present case the answers find in favor of the defendant the important facts that the plaintiff attempted to pass through the cars of a train which he knew might move in an instant after he got upon them, and that in the attempt he did not use due care. The question was presented in a case very like the present in principle, upon answers to interrogatories, and it was held that the defendant was entitled to judgment on the answers. Thompson v. Cincinnati, etc., R. R. Co., 54 Ind. 197. Judgment reversed and cause remanded, with instructions to enter judgment for the appellant on the answers to interrogatories. MITCHELL, J., did not take part in the decision of this case. Filed Oct. 20, 1887; petition for a rehearing overruled Dec. 20, 1887. The White Water Railroad Company . Butler. 112 598 115 440 No. 12,286. THE WHITE WATER RAILROAD COMPANY v. BUTLER. RAILROAD.-Passenger.—Right to be Discharged at Depot.-Liability of Carrier for Ejecting at Another Place.-A passenger has a right to be discharged at the regular depot of the carrier, and if ejected at another place the carrier is liable. From the Rush Circuit Court. L. W. Florea, G. C. Florea, F. J. Hall, J. Q. Thomas and J. J. Spann, for appellant. G. F. O'Byrne, W. H. Jones, C. F. Jones, J. F. McKee and D. W. McKee, for appellee. ELLIOTT, J.—There is evidence in proof of these facts: The appellee bought a ticket entitling her to be carried as a passenger from Brookville to Metamora over the appellant's railroad. She took passage in a train which carried both freight and passengers, and which, under the rules of the company, stopped at Metamora to receive and discharge passengers. At that place there was a depot at which passengers were received and discharged, and at which the trains usually stopped for that purpose. The train which the appellee entered did not stop at the depot, but did stop on a switch or side-track, and remained there long enough to allow another train to pass. The name of the station was not called, nor was any invitation given to passengers to alight. The train drew out from the switch, moved on past the depot, and when it had gone about one-half mile beyond Metamora the appellee was ejected. These facts entitled the appellee to a recovery. It was the duty of the carrier to stop at the depot where passengers were usually received and discharged. A right to be carried from one regular station to another includes the right to a safe alighting place at the depot of the carrier kept and used for that purpose. A person buying a ticket entitling him to The White Water Railroad Company v. Butler. passage to a town or city can not be required to alight at any part of the town or city it may please the carrier to stop, but he is entitled to be carried to the regular depot of the carrier. The carrier's duty is not discharged when an opportunity is offered the passenger to alight alongside of a switch or side-track distant from the usual and regular alighting place. A text-writer thus states the rule: "The passenger is entitled not only to be properly carried, but he must be carried to the end of the journey for which he has contracted to be carried, and must be put down at the usual place of stopping; and in an old case it was held, that when such usual place was an inn-yard, it was not sufficient to put him down outside of the gateway of the inn." Hutchinson Carriers, section 612. The authorities fully support the author's statement of the law. Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co. v. Buck, 96 Ind. 346 (49 Am. R. 168). It is probably true that a railroad company may make a distinction between trains employed exclusively in transporting passengers and those employed in carrying both freight and passengers, and require passengers on the latter trains to alight at a safe place other than the regular depot; but unless a distinction is made the passenger has a right to be carried to the regular depot. We decide this case, as the evidence fully warrants us in doing, upon the theory that no distinction was made between the two kinds of trains, and, proceeding on this theory, adjudge that it was the appellant's duty to stop at the regular depot a sufficient length of time to allow the appellee to alight in safety. Judgment affirmed. Filed Dec. 29, 1887. Wisman et al. v. McGee, Treasurer, et al. No. 12,999. WOOLS v. THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF JEFFERSONVILLE. From the Clark Circuit Court. J. G. Howard, J. F. Read, M. Z. Stannard and A. Dowling, for appellant. J. K. Marsh and Brown, Humphrey & Davis, for appellee. MITCHELL, C. J.—This case is in all material respects like that of MeCann v. First Nat'l Bank of Jeffersonville, ante, p. 354. Upon the authority of that case the judgment of the Clark Circuit Court is affirmed, with costs. Filed Dec. 1, 1887. No. 12,815. THE STATE, EX REL. COHEN ET AL., v. BROWN ET AL. From the Daviess Circuit Court. W. R. Gardiner, S. H. Taylor, N. Morris and L. Newberger, for appellants, J. Baker, for appellees. MITCHELL, C. J.—This was a suit by the State, on the relation of Cohen and others, against Brown, and the sureties on his official bond, as trustee of Washington township, in Daviess county. The facts averred in the complaint are in no wise different from those involved in State, ex rel. Cohen, v. Hawes, ante, p. 323. On the authority of that case, and for the reasons therein given, the judgment is affirmed, with costs. Filed Dec. 10, 1887. No. 13,024. WISMAN ET AL. v. MCGEE, TREASURER, ET al. From the Tipton Circuit Court. M. Bell and W. C. Purdum, for appellants. R. B. Beauchamp, G. H. Gifford and C. W. Swaim, for appellees. HowK, J.-The questions presented for decision by the record of this cause and appellants' assignment of error thereon are substantially the same as those which were considered and decided by this court in Trimble v. McGee, ante, p. 307. This cause is decided, therefore, in the same way and for the same reasons as the case cited was decided. The demurrer to the complaint herein was correctly sustained. The judgment is affirmed, with costs. Filed Nov. 30, 1887. INDEX. ABATEMENT. See CRIMINAL LAW, 7; PLEADING, 4. See CHATTEI MORTGAGE, 4 to 6. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS; VENDEE'S LIEN. ADMISSIONS. See EVIDENCE, 5; INTOXICATING LIQUOR, 1. ADULTERY. See CRIMINAL LAW, 6, 7. AGENCY. See INSURANCE, 2 to 4, 6, 7; JUDGMENT, 10, 12; RAILROAD, 3. ALLOWANCE. See CORONER'S INQUEST, 2; COUNTY CLERK, 2; DECEDENTS' EStates, 6, 7 ANIMALS. See NEGLIGENCE, 18; RAILROAD, 4, 5, 7 to 12. ANNEXATION OF LAND. See MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, 4 to 9. APPEAL. See APPEAL BOND; DRAINAGE, 2; GRAVEL ROAD, 3; Judgment, 11. APPEAL BOND. Action to Recover Real Estate.-Fixed Penalty.-Liability of Sureties.—Justice APPEARANCE. See JUDGMENT. 2 to 4. APPRAISEMENT. See EXECUTORS AND ADMINISTRATORS, 4. APPROPRIATION OF LAND. See RAILROAD, 13 to 15. |