Rogers v. Dexter & Piscataquis Railroad
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On report. Statute general and applies to all laborers. Hart v. JR. JR. 121 Mass. 510; Lyon v. JR. R. 127 Mass. 101; 'Parker v. R. R. 115 Mass. 580 ; 1 Redf. R. R. *586, and notes; Kent v. R. R. 12 N. Y. 628; Aiken v. Wasson, 24 N. Y. 482; JBalch v. R. R. 46 N. Y. 521.
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, C. J.
The defendant railroad company contracted with Brown Brothers & Company for the entire construction of its railroad. Brown Brothers & Company contracted with one Tucker for a certain amount of the grubbing and filling in such construction. Tucker contracted with the plaintiff for a certain amount of the grubbing (embraced in his contract with Brown Brothers & Company) at a fixed price per square yard. The plaintiff employed other men and labored personally with them, in doing the grubbing he had contracted to have done. Tucker did not pay the plaintiff as provided in the contract, and the.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Vane v. NewcombeSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Aikin v. . WassonNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Balch v. . N.Y. and Oswego Midland R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
3Cited by9 opinions
- Moore-Mansfield Construction Co v. Indianapolis, Newcastle & Toledo Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
- J. J. Henry Co., Inc. v. The United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1969
- Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. BrennanIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Morley v. McCaskeySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1928
- Kansas City ex rel. Mullins v. McDonaldMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.