TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Evansville, Indianapolis & Cleveland Straight Line Railroad v. Cochran

The Evansville, Indianapolis and Cleveland Straight Line Railroad Company v. Cochran

Evansville, Indianapolis & Cleveland Straight Line R.R. v. Cochran, 10 Ind. 560 (1858)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 26, 1858
Judges
Hanna
Citations
10 Ind. 560
Headnotes
Two of the questions arising in this case were decided in the case of the same company against Fitzpatiick, ante, 120. In a proceeding by a railroad company to appropriate lands fora right of way, the statements of witnesses touching the value per acre of the lands appropriated, are admissible. Where the jury, in such a case, were sent to examine the premises, and the record contained nothing in relation to the impression produced upon the minds of the jury by the examination, — held., that the evidence was not all in the record, though the bill of exceptions stated that it contained it all. Evidence is that which produces conviction on the mind, as to the existence of a fact. An occular examination of the premises alleged to have been injured, might, in this instance, have that effect, as well as an oral detail of circumstances.
Summary
APPEAL from the Pike Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Hanna

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Hanna, J.

This was a proceeding under the statute by the railroad company, to appropriate lands for the right of way, &c. Appraisers were appointed, whose report was, upon written exceptions thereto filed by the land-owner, set aside, and a trial by a jury had, which resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant of 300 dollars.

There are several errors assigned.

The first is upon the reception of evidence.

The questions asked, to which objections were made, were as to the necessity devolved upon the defendants, by the construction of the road, to make additional fences, and the amount thereof. This, and a kindred question growling out of instructions as to the same point, were considered in the case of the same appellants against Fitzpatrick, at this term (1) .

O. H. Smith, for the appellants. A. P. Hovey and R. A. Clements, jun., for the appellee.

The next error assigned is, in regard to the rulings of the Court in giving and .in refusing certain instructions relative to benefits or injury to the land-owner by the construction of the- road, &c. An exposition of the law upon these points was also given in the case referred to. We see no reason to change our rulings in that case.

It is insisted that the statements of witnesses as to the value per acre of the land appropriated, were improperly admitted. We do not think so. There is manifestly a difference in stating the value of an article as a fact, and giving an opinion as to the amount of unliquidated or consequential damages, &c.

The last error assigned is, in overruling the motion for a new trial. Upon this the question is attempted to be raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding as to the amount of damages. Although the bill of exceptions states that it contains all the evidence, yet in point of fact it shows it does not, for the reason that the jury were, as authorized by the statute, sent to examine the premises, and there is nothing in the record relative to such examination — that is, in regard to the information conveyed to their minds by such examination. Evidence is that which produces conviction on the mind as to the existence of a fact. An ocular examination of the premises alleged to have been injured might have that effect, as well as an oral detail of circumstances, in this instance.

Per Curiam. — The judgment is affirmed, with 5 per cent, damages and costs.

Ante, 120.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 16 cases

View all citing references →
1872–1873: 31874–1875: 11880–1881: 11882–1883: 11886–1887: 11892–1893: 11906–1907: 11944–1945: 11946–1947: 11952–1953: 11956–1957: 11960–1961: 11968–1969: 11972–1973: 118722026peak 1872 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Jeffersonville, Madison, & Indianapolis Railroad v. Bowen40 Ind. 545 (1872)
  2. Gagg v. Vetter41 Ind. 228 (1872)
  3. Shular v. State4 N.E. 870 (Ind. 1886)
  4. Taylor v. Fitzpatrick132 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1956)
  5. McCague v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad71 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 1947)
  6. Yost v. Conroy92 Ind. 464 (1883)

Most recent

  1. Greene v. Mauricio279 N.E.2d 814 (Ind. Ct. App. 1972)
  2. St. Joseph Bank & Trust Co. v. Putman252 N.E.2d 601 (Ind. Ct. App. 1969)
  3. KNOX COUNTY FEED AND HATCHERY INC. v. Ivers166 N.E.2d 132 (Ind. Ct. App. 1960)
  4. Taylor v. Fitzpatrick132 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. 1956)
  5. United States v. Certain Land Situated in Ripley & Butler Counties109 F. Supp. 618 (E.D. Mo. 1952)
  6. McCague v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad71 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 1947)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list