Legal Opinion

Bartlett v. Street Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided October 31, 1890PublishedCited by 10 opinions

Error to Kent. (Burch, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.

1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.

Plaintiff was one of the night watchmen in one of the defendant’s horse barns, and as such was employed from December 3, 1888, to September 19, 1889. The contract was for $1.35 per night. He was paid each half month at that rate. After the termination of his service, he brought this suit to recover for extra hours above ten hours per day, basing his right of recovery upon Act No. 137, Laws of 1885, making ten hours a legal day’s work in factories, workshops, etc. The suit was tried before the court without a jury, and judgment rendered for plaintiff.

Several questions are' raised by the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Perry v. Village of CheboyganMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
  2. Cicotte v. County of WayneMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
  3. Gingrass v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1882
  4. Reid v. LadueMichigan Supreme Court · 1887

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Montgomery v. Ætna Life Ins.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1899
  2. Connolly v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1925
  3. O'Boyle v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1902
  4. Golden v. Bartlett Illuminating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1897
  5. Clark v. Onaway-Alpena Telephone Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1917

5 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