Garland Power & Development Co. v. State Board of Railroad
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; F. Guy Fulk, Judge; It is within the power of the court to alter the phraseology of a legislative act when such alteration is necessary to carry out the intention of the legislature. End. Int. Stat. § ■§ 295, 319; 34 Ark. 263; 35 Ark. 56; 58 Ark. 113; 128 Pa. St. 593; 63 N. J. L. 291; 56 Wis. 425.
1Opinion of the CourtFratjEnTi-ial, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the lower court sustaining a demurrer to a petition for a writ of mandamus. The appellant alleged in its complaint “that it is a corporation organized under the general laws of the State of Arkansas providing for the incorporation of manufacturing and other business corporations, and that the chief and main business to be conducted by said corporation is the producing and manufacturing of electricity and electric current by water power for the purpose of furnishing power for -manufacturing or reduction plants, for mining, milling or jigging operations,…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Haney v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Willeford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1884
- Reynolds v. HollandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1879
- Danley v. WhiteleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1854
- Branch v. WinfieldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Standard Oil Co. v. BrodieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
- Mears v. HallSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
- State ex rel. Attorney General v. TrulockSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Summers v. Road Improvement District No. 16Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Snowden v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.