Case Name: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Nowlin et al.; Same v. West et al.; Same v. Miller et al.; Same v. Hayes et al.; Same v. Borgman et al.; Same v. Taylor et al.; Same v. Shanks et al.
Court: Appellate Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1905-05-31
Citations: 35 Ind. App. 707
Docket Number: No. 5,357; No. 5,358; No. 5,359; No. 5,360; No. 5,361; No. 5,362; No. 5,363
Parties: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Nowlin et al. Same v. West et al. Same v. Miller et al. Same v. Hayes et al. Same v. Borgman et al. Same v. Taylor et al. Same v. Shanks et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 35
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. Nowlin et al. Same v. West et al. Same v. Miller et al. Same v. Hayes et al. Same v. Borgman et al. Same v. Taylor et al. Same v. Shanks et al.
[No. 5,357.] [No. 5,358.] [No. 5,359.] [No. 5,360.] [No. 5,361.] [No. 5,362.] [No. 5,363.
Filed May 31, 1905.]
From Dearborn Circuit Court; William 8. Holman, Special Judge.
Condemnation proceedings by the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & .St. Louis Railway Company. From judgments refusing to permit plaintiff to litigate awards after payments, plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
8. O. Bayless, Roberts & Johnston, L. J. Hackney and John T. Bye, for appellant.
Martin J. Givan, for appellees in Nos. 5,357, 5,360, 5,361, 5,362, 5,363.
McMullen & McMullen and Warren'N. Hauh, for appellees in’No. 5,358.
Warren N. Hauh and Martin, J. Givan, for appellees in No. 5,359.

Opinion:
Wiley, C. J.
The questions presented by the record in 'these cases involve the right of a railway company to appeal from the award of appraisers in proceedings to condemn property for its right of way, after it has paid to the clerk of the court, wherein the proceedings are pending, for the use and benefit of the landowners whose property it is sought to condemn, the amount of damages awarded by the appraisers, and where the railway company has entered upon the lands and is proceeding to construct its road.
These identical questions were presented in the appeal of Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v. Hayes (1905), ante, 539, and decided adversely to appellees' contention, and upon the authority of that case the judgments are reversed, and the trial court is directed to sustain appellant's, demurrer to the second paragraph of answer in each case, and for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith.