Legal Opinion
Dudley v. Toledo, Ann Arbor & North Michigan Railway Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided April 28, 1887PublishedCited by 16 opinions
Error to Livingston. (Newton, J.) Assumpsit. Defendant brings error. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtChamplin, J.
This action was commenced under sections 3423, 3424, and 3425 of Howell’s Statutes, being an act passed by the Legislature in 1871, entitled—
“ An act to provide for the protection of laborers and persons furnishing material for the construction and repairing of railroads in this State.”
The act first makes it lawful for the railroad company, when entering into a contract for work, labor, or materials, to provide in the contract for the payment of laborers and persons furnishing materials to such contractors or subcontractors j and, if no such provision is made in the contract, it is made…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Martin v. Michigan & Ohio RailroadMichigan Supreme Court · 1886
3Cited by16 opinions
- United States ex rel. Fidelity Nat. Bank v. RundleCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1901
- Title Guaranty & Surety Co. v. State ex rel. Leavenworth State BankIndiana Court of Appeals · 1915
- National Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. Pittsburgh & Buffalo Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1916
- Cincinnati, Richmond & Muncie Railroad v. SheraIndiana Court of Appeals · 1905
- International & G. N. Ry. Co. v. Concrete Inv. Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1917
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.