Legal Opinion

Wray v. Tilden Saw Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided September 27, 1917No. Docket No. 35PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Error to Wayne; Hosmer, J. Assumpsit by Norman F. Wray against the Tilden Saw Company for salary earned. Judgment for plaintiff'on a directed verdict. Defendant brings error.

1Opinion of the CourtOstrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The contract of the parties was terminable at the will of *466either. Plaintiff was performing it when performance was interrupted. He was paid for all services rendered. He seeks in this action to recover his contract salary, as salary, for an indefinite period, during which he performed no service. His theory is that the interruption was without defendant’s fault or his fault, and effected no change in the relation of the contracting parties. According to this theory the contract is still in force and the salary running on, since it does not appear that the directors…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Howard v. . DalyNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Olmstead v. BachCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1893
  3. Keedy v. LongCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1889
  4. Granger v. American Brewing Co.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1899
  5. Kennedy v. South Shore Lumber Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1899

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. First National Bank of La Marque v. SmithDistrict Court, S.D. Texas · 1977
  2. People v. JasmanMichigan Court of Appeals · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API