Golden v. Bartlett Illuminating Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Saginaw; Wilber, J. Assumpsit by Joseph Golden against the Bartlett Illuminating Company for work and labor performed. From a judgment for defendant on verdict directed by the court, plaintiff brings error.
1Opinion of the CourtMoore, J.
This action was brought to recover $10 a month for 26 months, during which time the plaintiff was at work for the defendant. The circuit judge directed a verdict in favor of defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
The plaintiff testified that he was an expert electrician in the employ of defendant company, at $60 a month; that in 1893 the collector of the company quit work, and it was agreed that plaintiff, in addition to the work he was then doing, was to do the work of the collector, and was to receive $10 a month therefor; and that he worked under that contract 27 months, or until October 22, 1895.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Hayes v. Massachusetts Mutual Life InsuranceIllinois Supreme Court · 1888
- Tanner v. MerrillMichigan Supreme Court · 1895
- Vyne v. GlennMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Bartlett v. Street Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1890
- McAllister v. EngleMichigan Supreme Court · 1883
3Cited by6 opinions
- Beaver v. PorterSupreme Court of Iowa · 1905
- Sparks v. Spaulding Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1913
- Eisenberg v. C. F. Battenfeld Oil Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1930
- Kern Brewing Co. v. Royal InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1901
- Melick v. Nauman Vandervoort, Inc.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1974
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.