Pere Marquette Railroad v. Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo; Knappen, J. Assumpsit by the Pere Marquette Railroad Company against the Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Railway Company upon an account stated. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error. This case, an action in assumpsit, was tried before the court without a jury upon stipulated facts.
Read the full summary
Error to Kalamazoo; Knappen, J. Assumpsit by the Pere Marquette Railroad Company against the Kalamazoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Railway Company upon an account stated. A judgment for plaintiff is reviewed by defendant on writ of error. This case, an action in assumpsit, was tried before the court without a jury upon stipulated facts. The facts material to the single question involved are these: On March 23,1907, plaintiff executed to the defendant a lease of that portion of its road lying between South Haven and Lawton for a period of 25 years. The lease took effect April 15, 1907, and, after…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). The statute (1 Comp. Laws, § 50, subd. 10) provides that—
“The word ‘month,’ shall be construed to mean a calendar month; and the word ‘year,’ a calendar year; and the word ‘year’ alone, shall be equivalent to the words ‘ year of our Lord.’ ”
The lease contains no language to indicate that any other time than the calendar year 1907 was intended. The learned counsel for defendant bases his contention upon the language of section 6, Act No. 282, Pub. Acts 1905, providing for the assessment and collection of taxes *42of railroad and certain other corporations. That section…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Thompson v. CrainsIllinois Supreme Court · 1920
- Newman v. Borough of Fair LawnSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1960
- Commissioner of Revenue v. Grand Trunk Western RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1949
- Michigan National Bank v. City of Auburn HillsMichigan Court of Appeals · 1992