The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1896-01-24
THE COURT RECORD.
Supreme COurf.

1880. Oleson VS.. L. S. e NJ. S. Railway
Company. Porter c. c. Affirmed. Monks,
il. If the facts are undisputed and only
one inference can reasonably be drawn
from them, the question whether there is or
is not contributory negligence Is one of law
for the court; but If the facts are SO dis
puted as there may reasonably be a differ
ence of opinion as to the conclusions it is
one for the jury. p If the evidence given
at a trial is insufficient to support a verdict
for the plaintiff so that such verdict re-
turned must be set aside, the court is not
to submit the case to the jury, but may d.
rect verdict for the defendant. 8. When
a person crossing railroad is injured by
collision with a train the fault is prima
facie his own, and he must affirmatively
show by the proper allegations and proof
that his negligence did not contribute TO the
injury before he can recover for such in
jury. A. Where a person about to cross
a railroad track has an unobstructed view
of an approaching train, but he does not
look, but Immediately afterward the smoke
from passing train so obscured his view
of the approaching train so he cannot see
it's approach, it is negligence per Sc for him
to attempt to cross, and it was his duty to
remain in place OF safety until the smoke
had cleared away.
Center township. Marion s. c. Reversed.
McCabe, il. The character Of pleading
is determined by it's averments and not
by the name given 1t. 2 The title to schooi
property embraced in territory annexed to
a city vests in the school corporation OF
the annexing city without the payment OF
any part of the value of such property or
any Indebtedness of the school township
created on account of such property and re-
naming unpaid. 3. Retrospective laws may
be passed by the Legislature when they do
not interfere with vested rights.
1884. I. III. a. L. Railway Company vs..
City Of South Bend. st. Joseph c. c. At
firmed; Jordan. III; Where the facts as
alleged in the complaint are sufficient to
bar another action for the same cause 1T is
secure from an assault made against 1t for
the first time in this court. 2; bill or
nplx hn cd in
upon the express authority granted by the
court in term time to the party desiring to
avail himself of this right, and such war
rant must appear from the record and not
from the bill itself, and in the absence OF
a showing by the record Of such special
leave the bill of exceptions Is no part
thereof.
1889 Millkan VS.. Werts. Boone G. c.
Affirmed. Lott, il. Whenever a matter
is finally adjudicated and determined by
at rest. 2. When title is put in issue in an
ejectment proceedings, such proceedings be-
ing founded on a tax lien, each party Is
bound to bring forth all claims. both legal
and equitable which he has and have them
adjudicated or the Judgment will forever
have the right to reserve any particular
matter from the force of the adjudication
and leave it open for further determine
ton, providing the court makes such a res
ervation in its Judgment to which there Is
1871 Diltz vs.. Spahr. Marion S. c: Re-
versed. Ross, il. A party may be al
lowed to amend his pleadings to conform
to the evidence if the change will not state
a different cause of action or defense from
that originally pleaded. 2. In an action to
recover for less amount of services than
was contracted for the court should make
r. finding of facts establishing the reason
able value of the services rendered.
1902 Brewer VS.. Ream. Miami c. G. Re-
yersed Reinhard, J. Il. Argumentative-
ness in a pleading Is not ground for de-
murrer. 2. When a witness Is cross-ex-
amined on a matter collateral to the issues
he cannot, as to his answer, be subsequently
contradicted by the party putting the
question.