Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.-184 Ind. 531. amounted to a waiver of his objections to the jurisdiction of the special judge. Lillie v. Trentman (1891), 130 Ind. 16, 29 N. E. 405; Lewis v. Albertson (1899), 23 Ind. App. 147, 53 N. E. 1071. Judgment reversed with directions to the trial court to overrule the demurrer to the complaint. NOTE.-Reported in 111 N. E. 616. As to school officer or teacher as municipal officer, see Ann. Cas. 1914 D 1236. As to duty of public to furnish free transportation to pupils, see 37 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1110. For a discussion of waiver of objection to jurisdiction of special or substitute judge, see 19 Ann. Cas. 94. As to waiver of objection to disqualified judge, see 10 Ann. Cas. 969; Ann. Cas. 1912 A 1072. See, also, under (1) 35 Cyc 916; (2) 29 Cyc 1448; (4) 35 Cyc 908; (6) 23 Cyc 616. LOUISVILLE AND NASHVILLE RAILROAD COMPANY ET AL. v. THE WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY OF INDIANA. [No. 22,652. Filed March 9, 1916.] 1. APPEAL.-Review.-Weight of Evidence.-Where the evidence on the issue whether the use of a railroad right of way for a telegraph line would materially and substantially interfere with the use for railway purposes, to which it was already devoted, was conflicting and susceptible of different inferences as to the ultimate facts to be determined therefrom, it was exclusively the province of the court or jury trying the cause to weigh the evidence and draw the inferences therefrom, and the decision thus made can not be disturbed on appeal. p. 533. 2. EMINENT DOMAIN.-Complaint.-Sufficiency.-Allegations of a complaint to appropriate a right of way for a telegraph line over and along the right of way of a railroad company, stating that the appropriation was sought by plaintiff subject to unaccepted promissory conditions by plaintiff to move and change its poles and parts of its line and relocate same on such right of way whenever the operation and maintenance of such line should be an interference to any change in the location of the railroad track or the construction of new tracks, etc., served to show that plaintiff did not seek to condemn the land described at all events and to pay the compensation awarded, but that its purpose was to make the appropriation only upon the conditions stated, and in case it was permitted to impose the stipulations as to the future, and to have such stipulations Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.-184 Ind. 531. considered in making the award, rendered the complaint bad, since such terms and conditions as therein set forth can not be imposed by the party seeking to condemn real estate. p. 535. 3. EMINENT DOMAIN.-Conditional Appropriation.-Complaint.—A complaint for appropriation of land may be so drawn as to limit the rights to be acquired thereunder and so as to leave in the landowner certain easements and rights not taken by appropriation, in which event the damages are assessed on the basis of the land appropriated as considered in connection with the rights and easements not taken and compensation is awarded accordingly; but in the absence of an agreement, the party condemning must take the rights which he seeks to appropriate absolutely and unconditionally and he must make full compensation for what he takes. p. 536. From Posey Circuit Court; Herdis F. Clements, Judge. Action by The Western Union Telegraph Company of Indiana against the Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company and another. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal. Reversed. Philip W. Frey, for appellants. Pickens, Moores, Davidson & Pickens, George H. Fearons and J. E. Williamson, for appellee. LAIRY, J.-This action was brought by appellee to condemn a right of way for a line of poles and wires longitudinally upon and along the railroad right of way of appellants. The right of way affected by this proceeding lies within the county of Posey and extends from the State line on the west to the east line of Posey County. The questions presented on this appeal are practically the same as those presented in an appealed case between the same parties recently decided by this court, but in this case all of the objections filed were overruled by the trial court and appraisers appointed to assess the damages, while in the other case the court sustained certain of the objections and declined to appoint appraisers. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co. (1915), 183 Ind. 259, 108 N. E. 951. The plead Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.-184 Ind. 531. 1. ings in this case, as in the one just cited, presented an issue of fact. On the part of the railroad company it was asserted that the use for which the condemnation was sought would materially and substantially interfere with the use of the right of way for railway purposes to which it was already devoted, and this was denied by the telegraph company. In so far as this question affects this appeal the case cited is controlling, and what was there said need not be here repeated. The evidence presented on this issue on the two cases was very much the same. It was conflicting and was of such a character that reasonable minds might draw opposite inferences as to the ultimate facts to be determined therefrom. Under such a state of the evidence it is the exclusive province of the court or jury trying the issues of fact to weigh the evidence and draw the inferences therefrom and this court can not review the decision thus made. It is worthy of remark that the trial court in this case, reached a conclusion on the question of fact diametrically opposed to the conclusion reached by the trial court in the case cited, and that the evidence in the two cases was practically the same, and that this court under the established rules of law is unable to disturb either of such findings on appeal. Such a result would be impossible if the law were an exact science. If the standards by which duties and liabilities are measured were in all cases exact and invariable, the result of applying those standards, under like conditions and circumstances would be always the same; but the conditions and circumstances arising are so numerous and varied that it is frequently impossible for the courts to fix and enforce a definite and invariable standard by which to measure duties and responsibilities, and any attempt to do so would often work grave injustice and would be Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.-184 Ind. 531. worse than futile. A familiar illustration of the want of an exact and invariable standard arises in negligence cases. The standard of care applied in such cases is, "such care as a person of ordinary prudence would use under like circumstances. This standard is not capable of application in such a way as to reach uniform results. In applying this standard it is possible for different courts and juries to reach opposite conclusions in different cases where the facts and circumstances are practically identical. One jury might hold that certain conduct under a given state of circumstances and conditions was negligence, while another jury might hold that the same conduct under the same circumstances and conditions was consistent with ordinary care as fixed by the standard to which we have referred. In either case the finding of the jury on the question of fact would have to be affirmed on appeal. This apparent inconsistency does not arise from any defect of the law but from the imperfection and fallibility of human reason and understanding. The ideal "man of ordinary prudence" as conceived and understood by different minds is not the same; and, therefore, in determining what care such a person would use under a given state of conditions and circumstances, different conceptions of the standard may be applied and different results reached. So, in a case such as this, there is no fixed and invariable standard by which the courts can measure the degree of interference of a subsequent appropriation of real estate, with the public use to which it has been devoted under a previous appropriation so as to determine when such interference passes the stage where it may be compensated in damages and becomes so material and substantial as to preclude the right of a subsequent appropriation. In such a case this court can not reverse the decision of the Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Western Union Tel. Co.-184 Ind. 531. trial court on the evidence where there is a conflict, or where the facts established are of such a character that reasonable minds might properly draw opposite inferences therefrom. The complaint of appellee after setting out the description of the right of way which it seeks to ap propriate, and after describing the use to 2. which it is to be devoted proceeds as follows: "And subject to the condition, to which plaintiff hereby agrees, that in the event of the railroad company owning or operating said railroad shall at any time desire to change the location of the railroad track or tracks, structures or appurtenances, or construct new tracks, sidetracks, buildings, structures or appurtenances where the same do not now exist, which may be necessary in the operation of said railroad, by reason of which plaintiff's said telegraph line and the operation and maintenance thereof may interfere with the maintenance, operation and use of said railroad, plaintiff shall move and change its poles and parts of its line of telegraph to such other point or points on said railroad right of way as may be designated by said railroad company, upon reasonable notice and at the sole expense of the plaintiff; and subject to the further condition, to which plaintiff hereby agrees, that the railroad company owning or operating said line of railroad shall have the right to use said right of way occupied by said line of telegraph, but not so as to * * * interfere with said line of telegraph, and the right, when necessary upon reasonable notice to the plaintiff, to remove dirt, gravel, sand and stone from said right of way occupied by said telegraph line that may be needed in improving said railroad track or roadbed, or for other necessary purposes in the operation of said railroad; and the plaintiff hereby stipulates that it will hold the railroad company |