Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Judicature of the State of Indiana, Volume 112
Indiana. Supreme Court, Horace E. Carter, Albert Gallatin Porter, Gordon Tanner, Benjamin Harrison, Michael Crawford Kerr, James Buckley Black, Francis Marion Dice, Augustus Newton Martin, John Worth Kern, John Lewis Griffiths, Sidney Romelee Moon, Charles Frederick Remy
Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1888 - Law reports, digests, etc
"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 administrator affirmed alleged amount answer appear appellant appellant's appellee appellee's application authority averred Bank bond Brown cause charged Circuit Court cited City claim commissioner complaint conclusion construction contract costs counsel crossings damages danger debt decision defendant demurrer direct duty effect entitled error et al evidence ex rel exceptions executed facts fence filed finding follows further give given ground held hold Indianapolis injury interest issued judgment jury land liable lien maintained matter ment Michigan mortgage motion negligence notice objection paid paragraph party passed payment person petition plaintiff pleading presented prior proceedings proper provides question R. R. Co railroad railway company reason received record recover relation rule shown statute sufficient suit supra sustained term therein tion town track train trial unless witness
Page 356 - No association, or any member thereof, shall, during the time it shall continue its banking operations, withdraw, or permit to be withdrawn, either in the form of dividends or otherwise, any portion Of its capital.
Page 205 - Having no absolute right of recognition in other states, but depending for such recognition and the enforcement of its contracts upon their assent, it follows, as a matter of course, that such assent may be granted upon such terms and conditions as those states may think proper to impose.
Page 8 - All persons having an interest in the subject of the action and in obtaining the relief demanded...
Page 422 - The judge has to say whether any facts have been established by evidence from which negligence may be reasonably inferred : the jurors have to say whether from those facts, when submitted to them, negligence ought to be inferred. It is, in my opinion, of the greatest importance, in the administration of justice, that these separate functions should be maintained, and should be maintained distinct.
Page 137 - ... one person being in fault will not dispense with another's using ordinary care for himself Two things must concur to support this action. An obstruction in the road by the fault of the defendant, and no want of ordinary care to avoid it on the part of the plaintiff.
Page 411 - The proposition which these recognized cases suggest, and which is, therefore, to be deduced from them, is that whenever one person is by circumstances placed in such a position with regard to another that every one of ordinary sense who did think would at once recognize that, if he did not use ordinary care and skill in his own conduct with regard to those circumstances, he would cause danger of injury to the person or property of the other, a duty arises to use ordinary care and skill to avoid...
Page 137 - A party is not to cast himself upon an obstruction which has been made by the fault of another, and avail himself of it, if he do not himself use common and ordinary caution to be in the right.
Page 415 - ... it. It was possible for the defendant so to have constructed the guard, that such an accident as this could not have happened; and this, so far as appears, could have been done without unreasonable expense or trouble. If the defendant ought to have foreseen that such an accident might happen, of if such an accident could reasonably have been anticipated, the omission to provide against it would be actionable negligence.
Page 378 - No indictment is insufficient, nor can the trial, judgment, or other proceedings thereon be affected, by reason of a defect or imperfection in matter of form, which does not tend to the prejudice of the substantial rights of the defendant, upon the merits.