Seymour v. Detroit Copper & Brass Rolling Mills
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne. (Chambers, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtSherwood, J.
It appears from the record in this case that the plaintiff is an experienced practical mechanic, and is ■especially skilled in the erection of mills and superintending their construction. Prior to April, 1831, he had been em*118ployed by tbe defendant in superintending the construction of its works, and the defendant was then in need of a superintendent for its manufacturing department. The plaintiff resided in Waterbary, Connecticut. On the 5th day of April, 1881, the defendant solicited a proposition from the plaintiff to enter its service as superintendent of the works of the company at…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Wilbur v. StoepelMichigan Supreme Court · 1890
- Rosenthal v. Triangle Development Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1933
- Kelley v. HoogerhydeMichigan Supreme Court · 1946
- Backus v. BackusMichigan Supreme Court · 1919
- Cornell v. CraneMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.