Michigan Reports: Cases Decided in the Supreme Court of Michigan, Volume 184
Michigan. Supreme Court, George C. Gibbs, Randolph Manning, Thomas McIntyre Cooley, William Jennison, Elijah W. Meddaugh, William Dudley Fuller, Hovey K. Clarke, John Adams Brooks, Hoyt Post, Henry Allen Chaney, James M. Reasoner, Richard W. Cooper, Marquis B. Eaton, Herschel Bouton Lazell
Phelphs & Stevens, printers, 1916
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
accident action affirmed agreed agreement alleged amount appears application assessment assigned authority bill building cause charge circuit claim complainant condition consideration Constitution contract costs counsel court damages danger deceased decree deed defendant defendant's Detroit directed duty effect employment engine entitled error evidence examination execution fact feet filed follows further give given ground held hold injury interest issue judge judgment jury land lease March matter ment Mich Michigan motion negligence notice operation opinion paid parties passed payment perform person plaintiff premises presented proceedings proper question railroad Railway reason received record recover reference refused relation result rule statute street Submitted suit taken testified testimony tion track trial verdict wife wires witness
Page 282 - It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.
Page 271 - Under such general laws, the electors of each city and village shall have power and authority to frame, adopt and amend its charter...
Page 237 - It is claimed by some recent writers that it was not the intention of the framers of the Constitution to confer...
Page 91 - It is sufficient to say that an injury is received 'in the course of the employment when it comes while the workman is doing the duty which he is employed to perform.
Page 230 - If any implication is to be indulged from the delivery of the goods under the general notice, it is as strong that the owner intended to insist upon his rights and the duties of the carrier, as it is that he assented to their qualification. The burden of proof lies on the carrier, and nothing short of an express stipulation by parol or in writing should be permitted to discharge him from duties which the law has annexed to his employment.
Page 65 - ... shall well, truly and faithfully comply with all the terms, covenants and conditions of said contract on their part to be kept and performed according to its tenor, then this obligation to be null and void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and virtue in law.
Page 92 - ... out of the employment. But it excludes an injury which cannot fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause and which comes from a hazard to which the workman would have been equally exposed apart from the employment. The causative danger must be peculiar to the work and not common to the neighborhood.
Page 623 - ... companies, and all other companies owning, leasing, running or operating any freight, stock, refrigerator, or any other cars, not being exclusively the property of any railroad company paying taxes upon its rolling stock under the provisions of this act...
Page 230 - The burden of proof lies on the carrier, and nothing short of an express stipulation by parol or in writing should be permitted to discharge him from duties which the law has annexed to his employment. The exemption from these duties should not depend upon implication or inference, founded on doubtful and conflicting evidence ; but should be specific and certain, leaving no room for controversy between the parties.