The Indianapolis journal., 1904-02-16
HIGHER COURTS RECORD.
SUPREME COURT.
Minutes

SUPREME COURT.
Minutes
aO216. John A Strebur ct al VS.. Jacob
5. bavengood ct al. Miami c. c. Appel
9O275 Edith May Hammond VS.. William
g. Croxton ct al Steuben c. c. Appel
lants' petition for rehearing
2021S. p, c., c. & ST. l.. Railway Com
pany VS.. George w. Leightheiser. Cass c.
G. Appellants brief (S) Petition for oral
argument.
APPELLATE COURT.
Minutes
1866. Bernard H. Rem ct al. VS. U. s.
Cement Company. Jefferson c. c. Appel
lants' reply brief (s.)
5O56. l. Van Wrinkle VS.. ~ Y. c. & ST. L.
Railway Company; Whitley c. c. Appel
5O26. Rufus 8. Earring ct al. VS.. the Perrin
National Bank Johnson O. c. Appellee's
notice and motion to dismiss.
1850 Elmira j. WhiteSell eft al. VS.. EliZ-
abeth Strickler ct al. Appellants brief ()
on motion to prohibit.
1918. Pennsylvania Company VS.. Delphine
Coyer, administrative. Porter G. G. APP
pellants petition for additional time grant
ed Thirty days.
500 Peter c. Clevenger VS.. Martha A.
Matthews ct al Marion S. c. Appellants s
petition for additional time granted Forty
days. Appellants petition for certiorari
$685. c.. c., c. & st. L. Railway Com
pany VS. Robert L. Porter ct al. Marion G.
C. Appellants objections to certiorari.
1898 Frank Bird Transfer Company vs.
Samuel P. Morrow. Marion S. c. Appel
lants brief (S)
5O6l Emma L. Clark VS.. American Can
mel Coal Company. Appellants brief 3)
New Suits
5160 Evansville & Indianapolis Railway
Company vs.. Josiah @. Allen, admins
traitor. Daviess C. c. Record. Assignment
of errors. In term. Bond.
5l6l, Harvey Gill VS.. Calvin Perdue:
Huntington c. Q. Record. Assignment of
errors. Notices CD below.
Chicago's Liability for Theater Fire.
Considerable discussion has appeared in
the public press respecting the suits
brought against the city of Chicago on ac-
count of the Iroquois Theater fire. They
are said to be based on the failure of the
city TO enforce it's ordinances that would
have prevented the fire. But the decisions
OF the courts give little basis for such
suits. The courts have usually denied the
liability of a city for failure to enforce
ordinances against fireworks in streets, even
when the city officers participated in set
ting off the fireworks, or even when they
expressly suspended the ordinances for the
occasion. Cases TO this effect are collected
in a note in 16 L. r. A. 395. To similar effect
1t is held in ORourk VS.. Sioux Falls (S d.
10 l.. r. A. 7S9, that city is not liable for
the violation of an ordinance, with the ac-
quiescence of the officials. by firing a can
non in a public street. Failure to enforce
other ordinances, such as those against
coasting on a public street, has been held.
as in Wilmington VS.. Vandegrift deb 25
L. r. A. 53S, to create no liability against
the city. But an apparent exception TO the
general rule is found in the Maryland case
of Hagerstown VS.. Klotz, "a l.. r. A. $40.
holding the city liable for failure to enforce
ar ordinance limiting the speed If bicycles
on streets. And where the city expressly
authorized the explosion of fireworks, which
constituted dangerous public nuisance. it
was held liable, in Speir VS.. Brooklyn IN.
W l.. X. A. 641.