Schurr v. Savigny
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham. (Peck, J.) Assumpsit. Defendants bring error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLong, J.
Plaintiff entered into defendants’ employ on *145September 15, 1888, under a contract of employment for one year.
The defendants are the owners and proprietors of a photograph gallery at Lansing, this State, and employed plaintiff as an operator therein. The contract of employment is made up of several letters passing between the parties, the plaintiff at the time of entering info it residing at Indianapolis, Ind. There is no contention as to what the contract is, or the time of its continuance. It was for one year, at $20 per week. Plaintiff continued in the service of defendants for the full…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Harper v. PoundIndiana Supreme Court · 1858
- Citizens' Bank v. GrafflinCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 1869
- Benjamin v. Public Service Publishing Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1890
3Cited by25 opinions
- Woods v. City of WoburnMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
- Montgomery v. Ætna Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
- Grisell v. Noel Bros. Flour, Feed Co.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1894
- Tatro v. Baker-Fisk-Hugill Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1921
- In re Moon's EstateMichigan Supreme Court · 1922
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.