Arkansas State Fair Ass'n v. Hodges
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulk, Judge; 1. 83 Ark. 448, settles the law of this case in Arkansas. 50 Ark. 333. The practice is settled by 108 Ark. 184. Parol proof was admissible. 86 Ark. 74; 2 Cal. 105; 65 Ark. 53; 6 Wall. 499 ; 54 Ark. 270. See also 18 Ind. 24; 84 Kan. 856; 109 Ark. 563; 10 Pac. 858. 1. Parol proof was not admissible to ¡show that the Governor first approved the bill and then vetoed it.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; Guy Fulk, Judge; 1. 83 Ark. 448, settles the law of this case in Arkansas. 50 Ark. 333. The practice is settled by 108 Ark. 184. Parol proof was admissible. 86 Ark. 74; 2 Cal. 105; 65 Ark. 53; 6 Wall. 499 ; 54 Ark. 270. See also 18 Ind. 24; 84 Kan. 856; 109 Ark. 563; 10 Pac. 858. 1. Parol proof was not admissible to ¡show that the Governor first approved the bill and then vetoed it. The record is conclusive. 60 Atl. 599; 210 111. 48; 71 N. E. 602., See also 6 Wall. 499. 2. Mandamus will not lie. 71 N. E. 604.
1Dissent
McCulloch, O. J.,
(dissenting). No question is raised in this case as to tbe constitutionality of tbe bill nor as to the policy which prompted the Legislature to pass it. There is before the court for decision only tbe question whether the Governor vetoed the hill or approved* it.
The case of Powell v. Hays, 83 Ark. 448, is controlling. The writer did not agree to the decision in that case, and the views set forth in his dissenting opinion have not undergone any change, 'but a decision on so important a subject should not be so lightly overturned nor whittled away to suit the exigencies of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Gardner v. CollectorSupreme Court of the United States · 1868
- Powell v. HaysSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
- Ex parte ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908