Legal Opinion

Koehler v. Buhl

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 20, 1893PublishedCited by 31 opinions

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.) Asswnpsit. Defendants bring error. . The facts are stated in tbe opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtHooker, C. J.

The plaintiff, a furrier, entered defendants’ employ on June 3, 1890, under the following written contract, viz.:

“Agreement between Walter Buhl & Go. and Carl Koehler.
“ Walter Buhl & Go. agree to pay Carl .Koehler thirty-five dollars ($35.00) per week, and in January, 1891, the sum of one hundred dollars ($100)' as extra pay; and, furthermore, for the year 1891 they agree to pay to him the above-mentioned salary and five per cent, of the net profits of the fur department of the business.
“In consideration of the above salary and bonus, Carl Koehler agrees to do the best work he can for the…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Fosdick v. HusanMichigan Supreme Court · 1870

3Cited by31 opinions

  1. Toussaint v. Blue Cross & Blue ShieldMichigan Supreme Court · 1980
  2. People v. DellabondaMichigan Supreme Court · 1933
  3. Lynas v. Maxwell FarmsMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
  4. Mackenzie v. MinisSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  5. North Dakota Horse & Cattle Co. v. SerumgardNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1908

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API