Legal Opinion

Swanstrom v. Muskegon Improvement Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1892PublishedCited by 3 opinions

Error to Muskegon. (Dickerman, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtMontgomery, J.

The plaintiff recovered below for work and labor. The sole question presented appears to have been whether the contract of hiring was made on behalf of the defendant company. It is alleged that the court erred in submitting that question as a question of fact to the jury, the claim being that there was no testimony tending to show that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant.

The plaintiff testified that one Jacob Olson came to him in October, 1890, and employed him to work at carpenter work for the defendant company, agreeing to pay him going wages; that he worked 49 days; that there was…

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Schaub v. Welded-Barrel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1901
  2. Ward v. DunnebeckeMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
  3. McCrady v. PrattMichigan Supreme Court · 1904

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

Powered by the Exa API