Martin v. Michigan & Ohio Railroad
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Calhoun. (Hooker, J.) Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtMorse, J.
The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant corporation for certain labor claims, under the act for the protection of laborers and persons furnishing materials for the construction and repairing of railroads, and found in Howell’s Statutes, in sections numbered 3423, 3424, and 3425.
*461He bases his right to recover iipon the following arrangement and agreement: Zenas A. Hakes was a subcontractor,,
working upon a portion of the line of the Toledo & Milwaukee Bailway Company, of which company the defendant is successor by consolidation. He had no visible property, save a few scrapers and tools…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Chicago & Northeastern Railroad v. SturgisMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
- M. K. & T. Railway Co. v. BrownSupreme Court of Kansas · 1875
- Beecher v. DaceyMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Bottomley v. Port Huron & Northwestern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1880
3Cited by8 opinions
- Moore-Mansfield Construction Co v. Indianapolis, Newcastle & Toledo Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
- United States ex rel. Fidelity Nat. Bank v. RundleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. BrennanIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State ex rel. Leavenworth State BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1915
- Dudley v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1887
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.