Hammond v. Pullman
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Lake; McMahon, J. Log-lien proceedings by Peter Hammond against Albert W. Pullman and Edward West, copartners as Pullman & West, principal defendants, and George Engel, log owner. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant Engel brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
Plaintiff sued the defendants Pullman & West to recover for work performed upon certain cedar logs, tbe property of the defendant Engel. Pullman & West admitted the debt. The defendant Engel contended that plaintiff did not perform the work for Pullman & West, but for a firm named Lloyd & Pullman, under a contract entered into with Lloyd & Pullman before that with Pullman & West. This was the main dispute of fact in the case. Pullman was a party to each contract. The evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was to the effect that he was never employed by Lloyd & Pullman, but was employed from the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Craddock v. DwightMichigan Supreme Court · 1891
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. DodgeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1925
- Missouri-Kansas Pipe Line Co. v. WarrickSupreme Court of Delaware · 1938
- Luckhurst v. SchroederMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Connor v. McRaeMichigan Supreme Court · 1916