Sweet v. Gale Manufacturing Co.

ON REHEARING.

This case is again before us on rehearing. I find nothing in the application for rehearing or the brief filed in support thereof that either requires or justifies any change in the original prevailing opinion reported in 289 Mich. 259.

Counsel for plaintiff, in his brief in support of the application, says,

"It is our contention that the record supports the logical presumption that between the date of the accident and September 11, 1936, Mr. Perkins, the insurance man of the Gale Manufacturing Company, was notified by the plaintiff himself, and in view of the fact that Willard…