Legal Opinion

Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, Oxford & Port Austin Railroad

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1889PublishedCited by 41 opinions

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

1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.

The plaintiff is, and for many years past has been, an attorney at law residing in the city of Pontiac, and he brought this action against defendant to recover for expenses paid, and services performed, as agent and attorney of the defendant company, in securing the right of way for its road, and "for obtaining aid notes, raising money, securing loans, and making contracts for the construction of its road, covering a period from September, 1881, to November, 1883.

The project originally was to construct a railroad from Oxford to Port Austin, a distance of 84 miles, and a corporation was formed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Stevenson v. Bay CityMichigan Supreme Court · 1872
  2. Mayor of Niles v. MuzzyMichigan Supreme Court · 1875
  3. City of Detroit v. RedfieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1869
  4. Kalamazoo Novelty Manufacturing Works v. MacalisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1879

3Cited by41 opinions

  1. Epstein v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1949
  2. Altobelli v. HartmannMichigan Supreme Court · 2016
  3. Barnes v. Spencer & Barnes Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1910
  4. Greenspun v. GreenspunCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1946
  5. Ludington Water-Supply Co. v. City of LudingtonMichigan Supreme Court · 1899

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

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

Powered by the Exa API