Ferrell v. Elkins
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the CourtHart, J.
(after stating the facts). As above stated, the ground upon-which the demurrer to the amended complaint was sustained by the court is that the contract sued on is contrary to public policy, and therefore void. This court has held that a contract to procure the passage of an act of the Legislature by lobby services, or by using personal influence with the members, is void as against public policy. Buchanan v. Farmer, 122 Ark. 562, and Miller County H. & B. Dist. v. Cook, 134 Ark. 328.
The Supreme Court of the United States has said that there is no real difference, in principle, between…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Gregory v. WendellMichigan Supreme Court · 1879
- Cox v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
- Buchanan v. FarmerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Miller County Highway & Bridge District v. CookSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
3Cited by7 opinions
- Ellis v. First National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Sharp v. Drainage District No. 7Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
- Driesbach v. BeckhamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Alger v. BeasleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Coddington v. Safeguard Ins.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1963
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.