Anway v. Grand Rapids Railway Co

211 Mich. 592 (1920)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P took this suit alleging the following. P is employed by D as a conductor. P desires to work more than six days in consecutive seven days. P had no contract with D to do so. P claims no breach of contract No one had threatened to commit, any wrong upon him, or that he has any claim, present or prospective, for any damages from D. P seeks a judgment from the court on whether D will violate the provisions of Act No. 361, Pub. Acts 1919, if it should in the future permit him to work more than six days in consecutive seven days. P simply wants to know of the Act makes it unlawful for a street railway company to allow its motormen or conductors to work more than six days in any consecutive seven days of twenty-four hours each if the conductors or motormen so desire. D admitted the allegations of the bill. It is not claimed that the rights of any of these parties have been invaded, nor is there threat of invasion of the rights of anyone. No damages are claimed, nor is there threat of any damage.