Legal Opinion
Anderson v. Conductors Protective Assurance Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 3, 1934No. Docket No. 38, Calendar No. 37,518PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtNelson Sharpe, C. J.
The title and first section of Act No. 125, Pub. Acts 1909, read as follows:
“An act to provide for the incorporation and regulation of co-operative and mutual protective associations of railway conductors and engineers. ’ ’
“Any number of railway conductors and locomotive engineers, not less than seven, who shall be residents of this State, desiring to become a body corporate for the purpose of carrying on upon the assessment or co-operative plan the business of providing indemnity to members, not exceeding five hundred dollars, for loss of position arising from discharge or retirement, may,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Davis v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
- Steele v. Fraternal TribunesIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
- Haner v. Grand Lodge, Ancient Order of United WorkmenNebraska Supreme Court · 1918
- Calkins v. BumpMichigan Supreme Court · 1899
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Dwelley v. Tom McDonnell, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1952
- Brotherhood's Relief and Compensation Fund v. CagninaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963