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

  1. Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Davis v. Old Colony RailroadMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1881
  3. Steele v. Fraternal TribunesIllinois Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Haner v. Grand Lodge, Ancient Order of United WorkmenNebraska Supreme Court · 1918
  5. Calkins v. BumpMichigan Supreme Court · 1899

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Dwelley v. Tom McDonnell, Inc.Michigan Supreme Court · 1952
  2. Brotherhood's Relief and Compensation Fund v. CagninaDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1963

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

Powered by the Exa API