페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub

LANDLORD AND TENANT—Continued.

2. The relation of the servant was not that of tenant to land

lord, where he occupied a house on the premises of his employer as a part of the compensation paid to him. It was an incident of his hiring and his right to the use of the premises ceased when he joined a strike and ceased

to perform his duties. Id. 3. Accordingly, plaintiff could not recover damages for being

evicted and his goods set out of the house, upon his claim of excessive force, nor could he recover damages because

of mortification, injured feelings, etc. Id. LARCENY-See CRIMINAL LAW (8). LAST CLEAR CHANCE-See STREET RAILWAYS (6). LEGISLATIVE APPORTIONMENT—See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

(1-3). LETTERS–See EVIDENCE (7); FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (2); INSUR

ANCE (2). LICENSE-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (8); CRIMINAL LAW (4);

INJUNCTION (1); INTOXICATING LIQUORS.
LIENS–See SALES (2, 3).
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS–See CORPORATIONS (5); TAXATION

(2).
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES-See DAMAGES (6).
LOCAL OPTION-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (7).
LOGS AND LOGGING.

1. Where the owner of a raft of cedar posts and poles which

went ashore in 1908 in Canada, brought suit against the defendant for converting his timber, with which the defendant's property became intermixed, going ashore at the same point, three years later, and the evidence of the defendant showed that the timber could not be assorted on the exposed shore and that it was necessary to collect all the logs and tow them to a Michigan port, and that defendant, as soon as plaintiff made claim for the value of the timber, offered to return it, and did not claim to own the cedar, the plaintiff was not entitled to treble damages under 2 Comp. Laws, $ 5094 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] $ 4156), since the statute relates to an unlawful

taking. Bennett v. Michigan Pulpwood Co., 33. 2. Evidence in an action for breach of contract to safely tow

plaintiff's logs, considered, and held, not to have required the giving of a requested instruction that if the plaintiff hired the tugs and booms by the day, subject to a custom that the loss caused by the breaking up of the raft should be borne by the owner, the verdict of the jury must be for defendant. Karwick v. Pickands, 170.

LOGS AND LOGGING—Continued.

3. Held, also, that the charge of the court fairly presented the

issues of the parties to the jury. Id.

See EVIDENCE (6); SALES (2, 3). LOSS OF CROPS–See DAMAGES (4).

MANDAMUS.

It is necessary, in a criminal proceeding as well as in a

civil suit, to move to vacate an order which the relator
by mandamus seeks to have set aside: the rule applies
to an order quashing the information in a prosecution for
violation of the liquor law. Bennett v. Kalamazoo Circuit

Judge, 700.
See HIGHWAYS AND STREETS (2); MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS

(2). MANSLAUGHTER-See CRIMINAL LAW (6, 14). MARRIED WOMEN—See BILLS AND NOTES (10-14); CONTRACTS

(1); VENDOR AND PURCHASER (9). MASTER AND SERVANT.

1. A workman who has lost a leg and sustained other in

juries resulting in total disability is entitled, under the workmen's compensation act (Act No. 12, Extra Session 1912, 2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] $ 3939 et seq.), to recover the compensation provided for total disability for a period of not over 500 weeks up to a maximum of $4,000: additional compensation cannot be awarded for the loss of

the leg. Limron v. Blair, 76. 2. Recovery is permissible only under the Federal act

abolishing the fellow-servant rule and modifying the doctrines of contributory negligence and assumed risk (35 U. S. Stat. 8 65, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1322; see, also, Act No. 104, Pub. Acts 1909, 4 How. Stat. [2d Ed.) 8 4110 et seq.), in favor of an employee who was engaged at the time of his injury in repairing a draw. bar of a freight car that belonged to the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company and that had been used to bring coal into Michigan from a foreign jurisdiction. Gaines v. De

troit, etc., Ry. Co., 376. 3. Opinion evidence of two physicians that pneumonia did

not result from injuries which decedent received in the course of his employment, and which were followed by his decease, contradicted by plaintiff's experts who gave a contrary opinion, held, not to justify the court in reversing the finding of the industrial accident board awarding compensation. Bayne v. Riverside Storage &

Cartage Co., 378. 4. In an action under the Federal statute affecting the right

of employees to recover for negligent acts of fellowservants or others (35 U. S. Stat. 65; U. S. Comp. Stat.

MASTER AND SERVANT-Continued.

Supp. 1911, p. 1322), evidence tending to show that de fendant's employee, in charge of the main repair track, permitted cars to be backed upon the track while deceased and another car repairer were working on one of the cars, without warning or notice to them, and that such track was their usual place of work, held, to present an issue for the jury as to the negligence of such fellow-servant.

Evans v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co., 413. 5. Evidence tending to show that plaintiff's decedent was

caught on a revolving shaft, upon which he was making repairs, that one of the pins or keys on the shaft projected, but not showing what his clothing caught on, and testimony that he could have had the machinery stopped while he was adjusting the gears, held, to warrant a di. rected verdict for defendant. Cressler v. King Paper Co.,

422. 6. Findings of fact handed down by the industrial accident

board, on hearings pursuant to statute, are conclusive, in the absence of fraud, if any competent, legal evidence is produced to sustain the facts so found. Act No. 10, Extra Session 1912 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] $ 3939 et seq.).

Reck v. Whittlesberger, 463. 7. Although statements made by an injured employee relating

to his feelings, mental or physical, are admissible in evi. dence in proceedings under the compensation act, statements made as to the cause of the accident or source of injury are not admissible. But it is not required by the statute that the decision of the board must in all cases be reversed because error may have been committed in the admission of incompetent testimony, when there ap

pears in the record a legal basis for its findings. Id. 8. An employer's official report of an accident, filed with the

industrial accident board, as required by law, where the employer had ample opportunity to satisfy himself of the facts, and all sources of information were at his command when he made the report, may be taken as prima facie evidence that an accident occurred in the manner set forth, which fact the evidence did not tend to controvert.

Id. 464. 9. Where plaintiff was caught by the freight elevator from

which he was attempting to alight at the second landing, and it was not shown that the method of inclosing the shaft had anything to do with the injury or was an improper method, the court should have directed a verdict for the defendant, although it was the contention of the plaintiff that the shaft was not sufficiently inclosed, in violation of section 12, Act No. 285, Pub. Acts 1909 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] $ 4020). Fifelski v. Grand Rapids Gas

light Co., 503. 10. It was erroneous to exclude testimony of experts, offered MASTER AND SERVANT—Continued.

by defendant, tending to show that the method of in

closure was sufficient. Id. 11. Even the breach of a statutory duty is not actionable un

less such breach causes injury either proximately or con

currently. Id. 12. The rules relating to the obligation of a master to provide

a reasonably safe place for his servants does not apply to a portion of a mine in which miners and trammers were jointly engaged in taking out ore from a stope, and in barring down rock after blasts so as to prepare a place

to perform their work. Kochin v. Superior Copper Co., 543. 13. Evidence being in dispute relative to the sufficiency of the

inspection made in a stope of defendant's mine after blasting was done, and tending to show that the rock was unstable and full of cracks, and that the decedent, a tram. mer, had no duties in regard to such inspection, held, to present a question for the jury as to the matter of negli.

gence. Id. 14. On the trial, the court erred in refusing a request of plain

tiff's attorney to charge that there was no question of contributory negligence, when it appeared that defendant's counsel did not claim that the decedent was chargeable with negligence and the evidence raised an issue as to

the sufficiency of the inspection only. Id. 15. Under either Federal or State statute, the liability of a

common carrier to its injured employee rests upon a negligent act. Act No. 104, Pub. Acts 1909 (2 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] 8 4110 et seq.); 35 U. S. Stat. 66. Hollings

head v. Detroit, etc., Ry. Co., 547. 16. It was not actionable negligence on the part of a railroad

company to fail to warn a helper in the roundhouse of the fact that he incurred a danger and risk of injury in riding into the roundhouse on the step of the tender which only cleared the doorway by ten and a half inches at the side, notices having been posted in the roun house and on the wall, warning employees to keep off the steps of engines or cars entering the house, and plaintiff having frequently ridden through the doors on engines of different sizes; the danger was obvious and plaintiff chargeable with notice of the risk. It was his duty to familiarize himself with the situation and obvious dan

ger of following the course which led to his injury. Id. See COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (1, 3); CONTRACTS (4);

FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (1); LANDLORD AND TENANT (1, 2);

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (6); NEGLIGENCE (4). MATTERS EQUALLY WITHIN KNOWLEDGE OF DECEASED -See WITNESSES (3, 4).

181 Mich.-47.

[ocr errors]

MECHANICS' LIENS.

1. Where complainant installed a furnace in the homestead

of the defendants under a contract with the wife alone, who had no authority to act as agent for the husband, and such husband signed no written contract as required by 3 Comp. Laws, $ 10711 (5 How. Stat. [2d Ed.] § 13767), and at no time recognized the written agreement, no lien was enforceable against the property. Holland Furnace

Co. v. Hartig, 342. 2. A contract to furnish materials for a homstead occupied

by defendant and his wife is not valid unless it is signed by both husband and wife. John Wallace Sons Co. v.

Wilkinson, 693. 3. Complainant, a materialman, furnished lumber and ma

terials for the reconstruction of a house upon real property which belonged to one of the defendants. The premises were occupied by a son-in-law of such owner, as the homestead of himself and family. The owner was not a party to the contract. No evidence was offered which established an agency in the son-in-law to bind the owner. Held, that a lien could not be decreed upon the real property for the value of materials entering into the remodel.

ing of the house. Id. 694. MEMORANDUM-See FRAUDS, STATUTE OF (2).

MICHIGAN AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE — See COLLEGES AND

UNIVERSITIES. MINES AND MININGSee CONTRACTS (5, 6); CORPORATIONS (5);

MASTER AND SERVANT (12, 13). MOIETY-See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (2).

MORTGAGES.

1. Complainant executed a warranty deed to a trustee of two

of his creditors to secure an indebtedness owing to them. He claimed later to have paid the debt and received back a quitclaim deed which he omitted to place upon record. No notice appeared of record to show that the relation of mortgagor and mortgagee existed. The land was returned for unpaid taxes, was purchased by one McDade, who then acquired the title from the trustee and alleged mortgagee by quitclaim deed which he caused to be recorded. After the expiration of the period of redemption, the bill of complaint was filed to clear up the cloud upon the alleged title of complainant. Held, that under Act No. 229, Pub. Acts 1897, as amended by Act No. 204, Pub. Acts 1899, the title of defendant, a grantee of the tax purchaser, was valid and the bill must be dismissed. Chand

ler v. Richardson Lumber Co., 309. 2. In a suit by the wife of defendant to foreclose two mortgages which her husband had given to her as security for money advanced to him, as complainant claimed, evl.

« 이전계속 »