Legal Opinion

Campbell v. Haughton Elevator & MacHine Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 1925No. Docket No. 82PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.

It is the claim of plaintiff that while employed as a plasterer in the Crowley-Milner building he met with an accident, as the result of which he sustained injuries. He claims he was sent by an authority representing his employer, into the hatchway of No. 3 elevator shaft in this particular building to do some plastering; that the foreman under whom he was working had entered into an arrangement with the representative of the defendant company, which arrangement was entered into for the protection of the plaintiff and others. He claims the arrangement was not carried out, but was disregarded…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Hintz v. Michigan Central RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1903
  2. Dupuis v. Saginaw Valley Traction Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1906
  3. Groat v. Detroit United RailwayMichigan Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Vezina v. ShermerMichigan Supreme Court · 1917
  5. G. S. Blakeslee & Co. v. Reinhold Manufacturing Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1908

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Deffenbaugh v. Inter-State Motor Freight Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1931
  2. Carstens Plumbing & Heating Co. v. EpleyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965
  3. Campbell v. Haughton Elevator & MacHine Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1925
  4. Carstens Plumbing & Heating Company v. Betty Lou Epley, of the Estate of Harvey H. Epley, Deceased, Florence & Hartzell, Inc., S. Patti Construction Company, and Alliance Mutual Casualty Company, S. Patti Construction Company v. Betty Lou Epley, of the Estate of Harvey H. Epley, Deceased, Florence & Hartzell, Inc., Carstens Plumbing & Heating Company, and Alliance Mutual Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1965

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

Powered by the Exa API