Davis v. Detroit Boat Works

Michigan Supreme Court

Davis v. Detroit Boat Works

80 N.W. 38, 121 Mich. 261, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 561

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 N.W. 38 (Davis v. Detroit Boat Works) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Davis v. Detroit Boat Works, 80 N.W. 38, 121 Mich. 261, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 561 (Mich. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). I think the instruction was correct. He is bound by his settlements. He knew that Ballin did not settle with or pay him. The settlements and receipts were binding upon him, and bar recovery. He kept silent when he should have spoken. The law estops him to speak afterwards. No better illustration of the wisdom of this rule can be found. For five years plaintiff claimed he was entitled to overtime, but kept no accounts. He settled with his employer weekly, and meanwhile to no agent of his employer did he mention this claim until nearly four months after he had left its employ. I think the case is clearly within the principles enunciated in Bartlett v. Railway Co., 82 Mich. 658, and Brighton v. Railway Co., 103 Mich. 420.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Grant, C. J.

(after stating the facts). I think the instruction was correct. He is bound by his settlements. He knew that Ballin did not settle with or pay him. The settlements and receipts were binding upon him, and bar recovery. He kept silent when he should have spoken. The law estops him to speak afterwards. No better illustration of the wisdom of this rule can be found. For five years plaintiff claimed he was entitled to overtime, but kept no accounts. He settled with his employer weekly, and meanwhile to no agent of his employer did he mention this claim until nearly four months after he had left its employ. I think the case is clearly within the principles enunciated in Bartlett v. Railway Co., 82 Mich. 658, and Brighton v. Railway Co., 103 Mich. 420.

The judgment must be affirmed.

The other Justices concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.W. 38, 121 Mich. 261, 1899 Mich. LEXIS 561, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/davis-v-detroit-boat-works-mich-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack