Detroit, Hillsdale & Southwestern Railroad v. Smith
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to the Superior Court of Detroit. (Chipman, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtCooley, J.
Action for money had and received. The receipt of the money by defendant from the plaintiff was admitted on the trial. It appears that defendant at the time was general superintendent of the plaintiff, and also of the Toledo, Ann Arbor & Grand \ Trunk Railroad under a joint employment by the two railroad companies at a salary of live thousand dollars a year. Each railroad company was to pay one-half the salary. When the money now in contest was transmitted to the defendant, the Toledo Company was behind in its payments, and defendant claimed the right to apply the money upon what was due him…
2Cited by6 opinions
- American National Bank of Beaver Dam v. ClarkSupreme Court of Iowa · 1926
- Kingsbury & Co. v. Riverton-Wyoming Refining Co.Supreme Court of Colorado · 1920
- Johnston & Cheek v. GreenSupreme Court of Virginia · 1904
- Mariani v. City of DearbornMichigan Court of Appeals · 1965
- Smith v. Detroit, Hillsdale & Southwestern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1885
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.