Perham v. American Roofing Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Perham v. American Roofing Co.

159 N.W. 140, 193 Mich. 221, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 577

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1916

DocketDocket No. 12

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 159 N.W. 140 (Perham v. American Roofing Co.) 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

Perham v. American Roofing Co., 159 N.W. 140, 193 Mich. 221, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 577 (Mich. 1916).

Pincite

Opinion

Ostrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The facts import, not a contract to lay slate at a price per square, instead of by the day, but a contract to do a job of slate laying. It is as though Perham had measured the roof, found the number of squares, and, multiplying by the price per square, had contracted to do the [223]*223job for a sum certain. It was a necessary implication that the work was to be done in a workmanlike and proper manner, the premises being considered. Per-ham was in the exercise of an independent and distinct employment, not under the immediate control, direction, or supervision of the American Roofing Company.

In principle, the point is ruled by Gall v. Detroit Journal Co., 191 Mich. 405 (158 N. W. 36). The opinion in that case contains a reference to the former decisions of this court.

It follows that the second point is unimportant, and that the conclusion of the Industrial Accident Board was wrong, and must be set aside. It is so ordered.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Bird, Moore, Steere, Brooke, and Person, JJ., concurred.

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

Ostrander, J.

(after stating the facts). The facts import, not a contract to lay slate at a price per square, instead of by the day, but a contract to do a job of slate laying. It is as though Perham had measured the roof, found the number of squares, and, multiplying by the price per square, had contracted to do the [223]*223job for a sum certain. It was a necessary implication that the work was to be done in a workmanlike and proper manner, the premises being considered. Per-ham was in the exercise of an independent and distinct employment, not under the immediate control, direction, or supervision of the American Roofing Company.

In principle, the point is ruled by Gall v. Detroit Journal Co., 191 Mich. 405 (158 N. W. 36). The opinion in that case contains a reference to the former decisions of this court.

It follows that the second point is unimportant, and that the conclusion of the Industrial Accident Board was wrong, and must be set aside. It is so ordered.

Stone, C. J., and Kuhn, Bird, Moore, Steere, Brooke, and Person, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 N.W. 140, 193 Mich. 221, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 577, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perham-v-american-roofing-co-mich-1916.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack