Legal Opinion

Mitchell v. Beck

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1891PublishedCited by 4 opinions

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

1Opinion of the Court

Champlin, O. J.

' In the spring and early summer of 1889, the plaintiff, who was the owner of a steam-dredge, did some work therewith at the mill-docks of Smith & Daly, at Cheboygan, Mich., and the latter owed him therefor a balance of -about $760. As they did not pay this, he ceased to work for them. On August 12 of the same year he resumed the work on a promise that this balance would be paid at once. They paid him $300, and promised the balance the following day. On the 13th, and again on the 14th, of August he demanded his pay, and, not receiving it, on the latter day gave his engineer…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. Johnson v. CunninghamSupreme Court of Kansas · 1917
  2. Moon v. GreenleeSupreme Court of Colorado · 1921
  3. McCormick v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1905
  4. Monroe Lumber Co. v. BezeauMichigan Supreme Court · 1916

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

Powered by the Exa API