Hunt v. Marianna Electric Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE' COURT. Appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, alleged in their complaint that they were subscribers and users of electricity furnished by the Marianna Electric Company, the appellee, which company was the defendant below.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Lee Chancery Court; Edward D. Robertson, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE' COURT. Appellants, who were the plaintiffs below, alleged in their complaint that they were subscribers and users of electricity furnished by the Marianna Electric Company, the appellee, which company was the defendant below. That this electric company is a public service corporation engaged in the business of furnishing electricity for light and power to all the citizens of the city of Marianna, and that at the present time, and for a number of years heretofore, the said company has been operating a system or…
1Opinion of the Court
Smith, J.,
(after stating the facts-). (1-2) It does not appear from the pleadings in this case why the change in the system was made. For aught we know from the pleadings, it may have been ordered by, the city council, buit, however that may be, it may be assumed from the ■state of ‘the pleadings that the change was permitted by the council. We can not know what the terms of the franchise were under which appellee company was operating, as that information is not disclosed in any of the pleadings; but we do know that such matters are within the control and under the regulation, to some…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hot Springs Electric Light Co. v. Hot SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1902
- Fisher v. St. Joseph Water Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1910
3Cited by3 opinions
- Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. v. ShipleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- O'Sullivan v. FeinbergNew York Supreme Court · 1951
- Tuolumne County Electric Power & Light Co. v. City of SonoraCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1916