TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Carothers v. City of Stanton

Carothers v. City of Stanton.

Carothers v. City of Stanton, 241 N.W. 178 (Mich. 1932)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 2, 1932
Docket
Nos. 84, Calendar No. 35,856.
Judges
Wiest, Clark, Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, Butzel, McDonald
Citations
241 N.W. 178257 Mich. 1071932 Mich. LEXIS 782

Opinion of the Court — Wiest

Wiest, J.

Plaintiff was employed by the city of Stanton, as chief of its volunteer fire department, at a salary of $25 a year, and, at a fire, he was seriously injured. The department of labor and industry held that plaintiff was an employee of the city and awarded him the minimum of compensation, provided by 2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8425.

*108 Upon appeal, defendants contend that such holding is contrary to onr opinion in Hartman v. Village of St. Clair Shores, 216 Mich. 603 .

In that ease a volunteer fireman was paid $2 for each fire he attended, provided he was one of the first six to respond. The day the claimant in that case was injured he attended six fires and was paid $5. The record of the case discloses that an agreement to pay him $7 per week (the statutory minimum) was disapproved by the department and an allowance was made based upon a daily wage of $5. Such an allowance was clearly erroneous and we set it aside.

In the case at bar there was no allowance based upon a daily wage, but an allowance of the minimum sum set by the statute, to be accorded in all instances where the daily wage does not admit of a higher sum.

Plaintiff’s duties, as chief of the fire department, took but little of his time, and he carried on an independent business and performed other services for the city. This, and the fact that his yearly compensation as chief of the fire department was small and was not exacted promptly and sometimes credited to his water rate bill, did not at all change his relation as an employee of the city for hire.

The award is affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.

Clark, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. McDonald, J., did not sit.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1935: 11936: 21940: 11965: 11981: 119352026peak 1936 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Gusler v. Fairview Tubular Products315 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 1981)
  2. Village of Creve Coeur v. Industrial Commission206 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. 1965)
  3. Laidlaw v. City of Ludington261 N.W. 120 (Mich. 1935)
  4. Buehler v. University of Michigan270 N.W. 171 (Mich. 1936)
  5. Prange v. Grand Rapids Lumber Co.294 N.W. 90 (Mich. 1940)
  6. Lannon v. Hall267 N.W. 615 (Mich. 1936)

Most recent

  1. Gusler v. Fairview Tubular Products315 N.W.2d 388 (Mich. 1981)
  2. Village of Creve Coeur v. Industrial Commission206 N.E.2d 706 (Ill. 1965)
  3. Prange v. Grand Rapids Lumber Co.294 N.W. 90 (Mich. 1940)
  4. Buehler v. University of Michigan270 N.W. 171 (Mich. 1936)
  5. Lannon v. Hall267 N.W. 615 (Mich. 1936)
  6. Laidlaw v. City of Ludington261 N.W. 120 (Mich. 1935)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
McDonald v. Acme Lumber Co., 185 N.W. 665 (Mich. 1921) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list