Kalamazoo Novelty Manufacturing Works v. Macalister
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Kalamazoo. Assumpsit. Maealister recovered against the company in an action for his salary, and the company brings error. The facts are shown.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
This case was here in 1877, and was then sent back for a new trial (36 Mich., 327), and having been retried and again determined in favor of Macalister, the company a second time bring error.
The questions now raised differ from any disposed of on the former hearing. The ground of action is of course the same. The claim preferred by Macalister is for six months’ salary as company superintendent, together with interest, and the declaration is the common counts alone.
At the trial he swore that he was employed as company superintendent at a salary of $125 per month, and continued in such service…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Thomas v. . NelsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Hutchins v. . HebbardNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Hope v. . BalenNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Lathrop v. . BramhallNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Kalamazoo Novelty Manufacturing Co. v. McAlisterMichigan Supreme Court · 1877
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Railway Passenger & Freight Conductors' Mutual Aid & Benefit Ass'n v. LoomisIllinois Supreme Court · 1892
- Ten Eyck v. Pontiac, Oxford & Port Austin RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Board of Commissioners v. ShipleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Bankers Trust Co. v. Economy Coal Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1937
- Miller v. CarpenterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.