TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Noblesville Hydraulic Co. v. Evans

Noblesville Hydraulic Company v. Evans

Noblesville Hydraulic Co. v. Evans, 72 N.E. 126 (Ind. 1904)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 26, 1904
Docket
No. 20,298
Judges
Monks
Citations
72 N.E. 126163 Ind. 7001904 Ind. LEXIS 204
Disposition
Appeal dismissed.
Summary
From Boone Circuit Court; Samuel R. Artman, Judge. Action by the 'Noblesville Hydraulic Company against Adolphus L. Evans and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

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

Opinion of the Court — Monks

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

Monks, J.

This proceeding was commenced by appellant in the Hamilton Circuit Court, under §§4833, 4834 Burns 1901, §§3702, 3703 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901, to condemn certain land for constructing a dam across White river in Hamilton county, Indiana.

On application of appellees, the venue of said cause was changed to the court below, where, on their motion, the court refused to appoint appraisers, and dismissed the instrument of appropriation. Appellant appeals, and assigns for error the sustaining of said motion to dismiss.

It is insisted by appellees that no appeal will lie from said decision of the court below, for the reason that no provision is made for an appeal from such an order, citing Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Butner (1904), 162 Ind. 460 . In the case cited it was held by this court that a proceeding to condemn lands under §5160 Burns 1901, §3907 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901, was not in its earl-y stages, before an appeal from the award of the ap *701 praisers, a civil action, hut was a statutory proceeding of a special nature; that the provisions of the code for an appeal in civil actions to this or the Appellate Court do not apply to any ruling or action in such proceeding "during this period, and as no provision is made therefor by statute none will lie.

The provisions of the sections involved in this appeal are substantially the same as those of 25160, supra, and contain no provision for an appeal. This case is therefore ruled by Lafayette, etc., R. Co. v. Butner, supra. Upon the authority of that case the appeal is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1906: 11908: 21914: 11917: 119062026peak 1908 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Layman v. Dixon114 N.E. 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
  2. Collins v. Laybold104 N.E. 971 (Ind. 1914)
  3. Westport Stone Co. v. Thomas83 N.E. 617 (Ind. 1908)
  4. Stoy v. Indiana Hydraulic Power Co.76 N.E. 1057 (Ind. 1906)
  5. Lake Shore Sand Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.86 N.E. 754 (Ind. 1908)

Most recent

  1. Layman v. Dixon114 N.E. 698 (Ind. Ct. App. 1917)
  2. Collins v. Laybold104 N.E. 971 (Ind. 1914)
  3. Lake Shore Sand Co. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.86 N.E. 754 (Ind. 1908)
  4. Westport Stone Co. v. Thomas83 N.E. 617 (Ind. 1908)
  5. Stoy v. Indiana Hydraulic Power Co.76 N.E. 1057 (Ind. 1906)

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
Lafayette & Indianapolis Rapid Ry. Co. v. Butner, 70 N.E. 529 (Ind. 1904) 13

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