Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. v. Boomer, No. 397.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtKUHN
Citation160 N.W. 542,194 Mich. 52
Docket NumberNo. 397.
Decision Date21 December 1916
PartiesDETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO. v. BOOMER.

194 Mich. 52
160 N.W. 542

DETROIT, G. H. & M. RY. CO.
v.
BOOMER.

No. 397.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 21, 1916.


Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; George P. Codd, Judge.

Action by the Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee Railway Company against Isaac E. Boomer. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

This suit was brought against the defendant to recover the amount of a judgment, costs, and interest, amounting to the sum of $1,717.46, paid by the plaintiff as the result of a suit brought by one Casimir Glappa against it. See Glappa v. Detroit, Grand Haven & Milwaukee R. Co., 179 Mich. 76, 146 N. W. 134.

It appears that the defendant is engaged in the builders' supply business, having his yard nearly east of and adjoining the plaintiff railroad company's right of way between Forest and Garfield avenues in the city of Detroit. This suit is based on a contract entered into between the plaintiff and defendant for the construction of a private side track on the property owned by Boomer. The two material paragraphs of the contract relied upon are as follows:

‘Par. 10. The contractor shall protect the railway of the company from cattle and other animals escaping thereupon from such portion of the said siding as may be outside of the lands of the company and shall at all times keep the whole of the said siding clear of snow, ice and obstructions.’

‘Par. 21. The contractor shall keep a distance of six feet from each side of the said siding, free and clear of all obstructions, and forthwith remove any obstructions which may be within such limit.

‘This shall not apply to a certain telegraph pole which is allowed to be within said distance.’

On October 20, 1910, while the railroad company's servants were switching cars on the siding, one of the cars in the train jumped the track, injuring Glappa, who was working on a wagon alongside the track. He brought suit against the plaintiff and defendant jointly, but upon the hearing after the proofs were taken he was compelled to elect against which defendant he would proceed. He chose to proceed against the railroad company and recovered the judgment above referred to.

On the present trial, after all the proofs were in, both sides moved for a directed verdict, and the learned trial judge thereupon directed a verdict of no cause of action on the ground that the plaintiff and defendant were joint tort-feasors and the one could not recover against the other. The plaintiff and appellant contends...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Mo. Dist. Telegraph Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 34562.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 18, 1936
    ...568, 328 Mo. 1026; 3 Labatt on Master & Servant, p. 2713; 45 C.J., pp. 653-654; Glappa v. Bloomer, 146 N.W. 134; Detroit Co. v. Bloomer, 160 N.W. 542; Village v. Citizens Tel. Co., 173 N.W. 382; Eastern Tex. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 27 S.W. (2d) Smith B. Atwood, William F. Coyle, James A. Waech......
  • Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc., ENVIRO-CHEM
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 23, 1982
    ...Village[414 Mich. 88] of Portland v. Citizens Telephone Co., 206 Mich. 632, 173 N.W. 382 (1919); Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Boomer, 194 Mich. 52, 160 N.W. 542 (1916). In the Portland case, a young child was severely injured when he came into contact with a fallen electric line. The elect......
  • Whirlpool Corporation v. Morse, No. 3-62-Civ. 287.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • June 13, 1963
    ...N.W.2d 462, 88 A.L.R.2d 1347 (1961). See also Miller v. Pennsylvania R. R., 236 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1956); Detroit G. H. & M. Ry. v. Boomer, 194 Mich. 52, 160 N.W. 542 (1916); Restatement, Restitution § The Cahill Bros. case supra is fairly close to the facts of this case, but the Mayer case ......
  • Mayer v. Fairlawn Jewish Center, Nos. A--21
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • December 3, 1962
    ...1121 (4 Cir. 1954); Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 33 P.2d at pp. 977--978; Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co. v. Boomer, 194 Mich. 52, 160 N.W. 542 In sustaining the trial court, the Appellate Division took the view that the 'Protection of Work, Property & Persons' agreement wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Mo. Dist. Telegraph Co. v. S.W. Bell Tel. Co., No. 34562.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 18, 1936
    ...568, 328 Mo. 1026; 3 Labatt on Master & Servant, p. 2713; 45 C.J., pp. 653-654; Glappa v. Bloomer, 146 N.W. 134; Detroit Co. v. Bloomer, 160 N.W. 542; Village v. Citizens Tel. Co., 173 N.W. 382; Eastern Tex. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 27 S.W. (2d) Smith B. Atwood, William F. Coyle, James A. Waech......
  • Hardy v. Monsanto Enviro-Chem Systems, Inc., ENVIRO-CHEM
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 23, 1982
    ...Village[414 Mich. 88] of Portland v. Citizens Telephone Co., 206 Mich. 632, 173 N.W. 382 (1919); Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Boomer, 194 Mich. 52, 160 N.W. 542 (1916). In the Portland case, a young child was severely injured when he came into contact with a fallen electric line. The elect......
  • Whirlpool Corporation v. Morse, No. 3-62-Civ. 287.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • June 13, 1963
    ...N.W.2d 462, 88 A.L.R.2d 1347 (1961). See also Miller v. Pennsylvania R. R., 236 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1956); Detroit G. H. & M. Ry. v. Boomer, 194 Mich. 52, 160 N.W. 542 (1916); Restatement, Restitution § The Cahill Bros. case supra is fairly close to the facts of this case, but the Mayer case ......
  • Mayer v. Fairlawn Jewish Center, Nos. A--21
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • December 3, 1962
    ...1121 (4 Cir. 1954); Otis Elevator Co. v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 33 P.2d at pp. 977--978; Detroit, G.H. & M. Ry. Co. v. Boomer, 194 Mich. 52, 160 N.W. 542 In sustaining the trial court, the Appellate Division took the view that the 'Protection of Work, Property & Persons' agreement wa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT