Chicago & Northeastern Railroad v. Sturgis
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Ingham. Assumpsit. Defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtGraves, J.
The circuit judge ruled, against objection, that the declaration was sufficient for the defendant in error to prove a case against the corporation under the act “ to provide for the protection of laborers and persons furnishing material for the construction and repairing of railroads in this State.” The statute is compiled as §§ 2393, 2391, 2395. The ruling was erroneous. The declaration consisted of the common counts; two being repeated with allusions, and nothing more, to the statute, with an added statement of the plaintiff’s title by assignment.
A party must set forth his case if he have…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1872
- Nickerson v. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1878
- Austin v. . GoodrichNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Moore v. WadeSupreme Court of Kansas · 1871
- Churchill v. . OnderdonkNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Moore-Mansfield Construction Co v. Indianapolis, Newcastle & Toledo Railway Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Indianapolis Northern Traction Co. v. BrennanIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. HaleySupreme Court of Kansas · 1881
- Fulghum & Union Indemnity Co. v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1926
- Falconio v. LarsenOregon Supreme Court · 1897
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.