TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Evansville & Crawfordsville Railroad v. Miller

The Evansville and Crawfordsville Railroad Company v. Miller

Evansville & Crawfordsville R.R. v. Miller, 30 Ind. 209 (1868)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 15, 1868
Judges
Frazer
Citations
30 Ind. 209
Headnotes
Railkoads. — Assessment of Damages. — Constitutional Law. — Trial by Jury.— Upon an appeal f.o ilie Circuit Court from a proceeding before a justice of the peace to assess damages sustained by the owner of land taken for public use under the ninth section of the act to incorporate the Evansville and Illinois Railroad Company (Local Laws 1849), the Circuit Court, sitting as a court of chancery, may take the opinion of a jury upon a single question of fact, but in such cases trial by jury is not a constitutional right. Same. — Practice.—Burden of the Issue. — The only question fu'esented in the Circuit Court on an appeal by the owner of the land condemned being ' the measure of damages; held, that the appellant had the right to begin. Same. — Judgment.—In such case it is error to render a common judgment against the corporation for the damages, without a decree for the conveyance of the land in question to the corporation upon the payment of the money.
Summary
APPEAL from the Vanderburgh. 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 — Frazer

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

Frazer, J.

This was a proceeding to condemn lands to public use, under the ninth section of the act to incorporate the Evansville and Illinois Railroad Company (Local Laws 1849). The appellee took the case to the Circuit Court for review, as provided by that section. The petition to the Circuit Court complained only that inadequate damages had been assessed before the justice of the peace.

A jury trial, to which the appellant objected, and in whicli the appellee' was permitted to 'begin, resulted in an increased assessment of damages, and there was then entered an ordinary judgment against the appellant for the damages assessed.

A jury trial was not a matter of right. According to the act already cited, the Circuit Court proceeds, “ acting and sitting as a court of chancery.” In such cases it is very clear that trial by jury is not a constitutional right. But a court of chancery might take the opinion of a jury upon a single question of fact; and we think, therefore, that *210 there was no available error in the proceedings in that particular.

A. Iglehart, for appellant. J. M. Shackleford, for appellee.

Inasmuch as no question but the measure of damages was presented in the Circuit Court, there was no error, we think, in giving the appellee the right to begin. He had the affirmative of the question.

The court rendered a common judgment against the appellant for the damages, without any decree for a conveyance to the appellant upon the payment of the money. This was in violation of the express letter of the act already referred to, and must reverse the judgment.

The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the cause remanded, with directions to render a decree according to this opinion.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1871–1872: 11873–1874: 21875–1876: 11883–1884: 31885–1886: 21895–1896: 21905–1906: 11909–1910: 11959–1960: 11973–1974: 118712026peak 1883 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Shepherd74 N.E. 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 1905)
  2. Conwell v. Tate8 N.E. 36 (Ind. 1886)
  3. Gradison v. State300 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. 1973)
  4. St. Louis, Lawrence & Denver Railroad v. Wilder17 Kan. 239 (1876)
  5. Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co.158 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. 1959)
  6. Hamlyn v. Nesbit37 Ind. 284 (1871)

Most recent

  1. Gradison v. State300 N.E.2d 67 (Ind. 1973)
  2. Van Sickle v. Kokomo Water Works Co.158 N.E.2d 460 (Ind. 1959)
  3. Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Wiles91 N.E. 161 (Ind. 1910)
  4. Indianapolis & Cincinnati Traction Co. v. Shepherd74 N.E. 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 1905)
  5. Florence, El Dorado & Walnut Valley Railroad v. Lilley43 P. 857 (Kan. Ct. App. 1896)
  6. Consumers' Gas Trust Co. v. Huntsinger40 N.E. 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1895)

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