Davis v. Detroit Boat Works
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Wayne; Frazer, J. Assumpsit by Mark George Davis against the Detroit Boat Works for services rendered. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff continued in the employ of the defendant for the years 1893 to 1897, inclusive.
Read the full summary
Error to Wayne; Frazer, J. Assumpsit by Mark George Davis against the Detroit Boat Works for services rendered. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error. Plaintiff continued in the employ of the defendant for the years 1893 to 1897, inclusive. He was employed at the rate of $2.50 a day, or $15 a week, except once, in the winter of 1896-97, he testified that he was to receive $7.50 a week, but this was to be made up to him in the summer. During all these years he was páid every week by Mr. McMillan, the treasurer of the company, and gave his…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, C. J.
(after stating the facts). I think the instruction was correct. He is bound by his settlements. He knew that Ballin did not settle with or pay him. The settlements and receipts were binding upon him, and bar recovery. He kept silent when he should have spoken. The law estops him to speak afterwards. No better illustration of the wisdom of this rule can be found. For five years plaintiff claimed he was entitled to overtime, but kept no accounts. He settled with his employer weekly, and meanwhile to no agent of his employer did he mention this claim until nearly four months after he had left…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Brighton v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1894
- Bartlett v. Street Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
3Cited by4 opinions
- Connolly v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
- O'Boyle v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
- Clark v. Onaway-Alpena Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917
- Bidwell v. Grand Trunk Western Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1907