Leader Co. v. Little Rock Railway & Electric Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. The use of the word “assigns” in a contract is sufficient to authorize -an assignment of a contract otherwise not assignable without consent.. 94 Ark. 461. The contract in this case is assignable, there being no provision to the contrary in the contract itself. 97 Ark. 513; 164 Mich. .539; 129 N. W. 701; 13 Wash. 502;. 43 Pac. 328; 111 Pac. 326. 2. If the words, “This agreement is not transferable”…
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; John E. Martineau, Chancellor; 1. The use of the word “assigns” in a contract is sufficient to authorize -an assignment of a contract otherwise not assignable without consent.. 94 Ark. 461. The contract in this case is assignable, there being no provision to the contrary in the contract itself. 97 Ark. 513; 164 Mich. .539; 129 N. W. 701; 13 Wash. 502;. 43 Pac. 328; 111 Pac. 326. 2. If the words, “This agreement is not transferable” appearing on the back of the contract, means that the contract is forfeited by an assignment thereof, it is in irreconcilable…
1Opinion of the Court
■McCulloch, O. J.
The plaintiff (appellant) is a domestic corporation engaged in the mercantile business in the city of Little Rock, and the defendant, also a, domestic corporation, is engaged in the business of furnishing electricity in said city for commercial and domestic uses. This is an action instituted by the plaintiff to restrain the defendant from increasing the price of electricity furnished to plaintiff’s place of business .and from shutting off the supply of current unless the plaintiff agrees to pay the increased rate. The chancellor sustained a demurrer to the complaint and…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Delaware County Commissioners v. Diebold Safe & Lock Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Burck v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Minnetonka Oil Co. v. Cleveland Vitrified Brick Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1910
- Voigt v. Murphy Heating Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1911
- Jenkins v. Columbia Land & Improvement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1896
3Cited by13 opinions
- Central Power & Light Co. v. PurvisCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1934
- American Indemnity Company v. HoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
- Scrinopskie v. MeidertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
- Purnell v. AtkinsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1970
- White v. Raleigh Wyoming Mining Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1933
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.