Case Name: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Porter et al.
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1905-05-09
Citations: 38 Ind. App. 226
Docket Number: No. 5,069
Parties: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Porter et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 38
Pages: 226–234

Head Matter:
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Porter et al.
[No. 5,069.
Filed May 9, 1905.
Rehearing denied November 15, 1905.
Transfer denied June 7, 1906.]
1. Trial. — Record.—Amendments.—Entries.—Nunc Pro Tunc.— Evidence. — An exhibit to a complaint, unattached thereto, which is filed therewith and properly identified in such complaint may be shown, by a nunc pro tunc entry, to have been so filed therewith, the cleric’s file mark and parol testimony substantiating such claim and no denial being made. p. 228.
2. Pleading. — Complaint. — Exhibits.—How Made. — •Order-Book Entries. — An exhibit to a complaint which is not physically attached thereto is a part thereof, where the complaint makes it a part thereof by reference; and a separate order-book entry of the filing thereof is not necessary, p. 228.
3. Municipal Corporations. — Street Improvement Liens. — Subsequent Foreclosure on Back-Lying Lots. — The holder of a lien for street improvements, having foreclosed same as against the lots fronting the street, may subsequently foreclose such lien against the back-lying lots. Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 163 Ind. 599, followed, p. 228.
4. Municipal Coepoeations. — Street Improvement Liens. — Subsequent Foreclosure on Back-Lying Lots. — Attorneys’ Fees. — In a suit to foreclose the lien for street improvements against back-lying lots, such lien having been foreclosed against the lots fronting the street, attorneys’ fees may be recovered, though attorneys’ fees were recovered in the former foreclosure. Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., 163 Ind. 599, followed, p. 228.
Erom Marion Circuit Court (10,583); Henry Clay Allen, Judge.
Suit by Eobert L. Porter and others against the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Lonis Eailway Company and another. Erom a decree for plaintiffs, defendant railway company appeals.
Affirmed. (Appealed to Supreme Court of the United States.)
L. J. Hackney, Elliott, Elliott & Littleton and John T. Dye, for appellant.
Gifford & Gifford, for appellees.

Opinion:
Roby, J.
It appears from the complaint that the appellant is the owner of back-lying real estate within 150 feet of a street, in the city of Lebanon, improved in 1896 under the Barrett law, the purpose of the suit being to- foreclose the lien of the assessment upon said back-lying real estate, the front portion thereof owned by other parties having sold for an amount less than such assessment.
A demurrer for want of facts to each of the two paragraphs of complaint was overruled. An answer of several paragraphs was filed, including a general denial, special findings of fact and conclusions of law were made and stated by the court, and a decree of foreclosure rendered in accordance therewith, from which this appeal is taken.
Since the cause was tried and since the appeal was perfected the case of Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. (1904), 163 Ind. 599 — the facts of which are very similar —has been decided, the conclusions announced therein rendering it unnecessary to do more at this time with regard to many of appellant's contentions than to cite the foregoing case.
It was asserted in. appellant's original brief that the complaint was bad in failing to exhibit a copy of the assessment roll. Return to a writ of certiorari shows the exhibit to have been filed with the amended complaint, a nunc fro tunc entry having been made to that effect by the trial court. Appellant contends that inasmuch as the evidence upon which such entry was made shows that the exhibit was not attached to the pleading, and that no separate entry of the filing of said exhibit with the pleading was made, there was no basis upon which the nunc fro tunc entry could be made. The exhibit is identified by the file mark of the clerk of the Boone Circuit Court and by parol evidence, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Security Co. v. Arbuckle (1890), 128 Ind. 518.
While the exhibit was not bodily attached to the pleading it was-referred to therein as follows: "A copy of which corrected and amended estimate report is filed herewith, made a part hereof, and marked exhibit A." The exhibit thus marked and filed with the complaint became a part thereof without a separate order-book entry.
It is also asserted that an election to foreclose the assessment lien upon the property fronting upon the improved street estopped the appellees from a subsequent foreclosure upon back-lying property. The proposition seems to be otherwise held. Voris v. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co., sufra.
Judgment affirmed.