State ex rel. Attorney General v. Ehle
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; While the amount which might be recovered in this case is indeterminate, yet there is a basis provided for ascertaining definitely the amount to be recovered.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; G. W. Hendricks, Judge; While the amount which might be recovered in this case is indeterminate, yet there is a basis provided for ascertaining definitely the amount to be recovered. There is certainly a contractual relation between the defendant and the State of Arkansas, the obligation of which attached when he embarked in business in this State, and we can see no good reason why an action for a penalty will not support attachment. If the remedy is not clearly excluded by the statute, it should be sustained. 24 So. (Ala.) 847; 3 Blackstone…
1Opinion of the CourtMcCulloch, C. J.
The Attorney General instituted this action on behalf of the State against the defendant, L. O. Ehle, to recover penalties for alleged violations of the anti-trust laws of the State, it being alleged in the complaint thqt defendant owns certain oil mills in the State and is engaged in the business of selling and buying cotton seed in several of the cities and towns, and that he unlawfully entered into and became a member of a pool or trust with certain corporations engaged in the same line of business to fix and maintain the price of cotton seed in the State.
Defendant was, and is, a…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Dittman Boot & Shoe Co. v. MixonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1897
- Stewart v. Blue Grass Canning Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1909
3Cited by1 opinion
- Bynum v. Patty and Devilbiss v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944