Mississippi Valley Power Co. v. Board of Improvement, Water Works District No. 1
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). Appellant contends that the conduct of the parties, the power company continuing to furnish power to the district and charge and receive for the service the same rates or compensation as paid under the contract, amounted to an extension of the terms of the contract for another five-year period, without regard to whether any notice of such desired extension was given in accordance with the terms of the contract. That the provisions about the written notice were for its benefit and could be waived by it. The undisputed testimony shows that no such written…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Lang v. City of CavalierNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1930
- Shields v. City of LovelandSupreme Court of Colorado · 1923
- Barnes v. Lehi CityUtah Supreme Court · 1929
- Tripp v. BagleyUtah Supreme Court · 1928
- Bell v. City of FayetteSupreme Court of Missouri · 1930
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State and Diver v. City of MiamiSupreme Court of Florida · 1933
- Jernigan v. HarrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1933
- Snodgrass v. PocahontasSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- Interstate Power Co. v. Town of McGregorSupreme Court of Iowa · 1941
- Williams v. Harris, MayorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.