Indiana Supreme Court, 1889

Thickstun v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

Indiana Supreme Court · Decided May 10, 1889 · Elliott

119 Ind. 26; 21 N.E. 323; 1889 Ind. LEXIS 220

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

Silver Fleet Motor Express, Inc. v. Scott-Teen, Inc. (Ind. Ct. App. 1962)
City of Ft. Wayne v. Capehart-Farnsworth Corp. (Ind. Ct. App. 1957)
City of Indianapolis v. Woessner (Ind. 1913)
Syndicate Improvement Co. v. Bradley (Wyo. 1897)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Elliott, C. J. —

The appellant recovered judgment for twenty-five dollars in the court below, and moved for a new trial, assigning as causes that the finding is contrary to law, and that it is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Under the settled rule, no question as to the amount of the recovery is presented by this motion for a new trial. Hyatt v. Mat-*27tingly, 68 Ind. 271; Langohr v. Smith, 81 Ind. 495; McElhoes v. Dale, 81 Ind. 67; Millikan v. Patterson, 91 Ind. 515; Fort Wayne, etc., R. W. Co. v. Beyerle, 110 Ind. 100. As the sole contention is that, the recovery was not for a sum to which the appellant claims he was entitled, we must affirm the judgment, because the question is not presented as the law requires.

Filed May 10, 1889.

Judgment affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.