Legal Opinion

Bisdom v. Kerbrat

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 3, 1930No. Docket No. 83, Calendar No. 35,043PublishedCited by 19 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtButzel, J.

Frank Kerbrat and the Indemnity Insurance Company of America, defendants, have appealed from a compensation award made to plaintiff, the widow of Euloef Bisdom. Kerbrat was in the landscape gardening business in the city of Detroit and surrounding territory. He employed Bisdom not only to superintend jobs but also to assist in obtaining them. Each morning he assigned to Bisdom the work for the day. He provided him with a Ford pick-up car and paid the expenses of maintenance.

Although as a rule Bisdom’s working day would end at 5:30 p. m., at times he was called upon to work later. At 4:30 p.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Stockley v. School District No. 1 of Portage Township.Michigan Supreme Court · 1925
  2. Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Widman v. Murray Corp. of AmericaMichigan Supreme Court · 1929

3Cited by19 opinions

  1. Whetro v. AwkermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
  2. Chrysler v. Blue Arrow Transport LinesMichigan Supreme Court · 1940
  3. Reisinger-Siehler Co. v. PerryCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1933
  4. Howard v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
  5. Simpson v. Lee & CadyMichigan Supreme Court · 1940

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API