Barnett v. Mays
| Citation | 239 S.W. 379,153 Ark. 1 |
| Decision Date | 03 April 1922 |
| Docket Number | 267 |
| Parties | BARNETT v. MAYS |
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
Appeal from Searcy Chancery Court; Ben F. McMahan, Chancellor reversed.
Decree reversed, and cause remanded.
S W. Woods, for appellants.
The contract entered into between Barnett and the city of Leslie was valid and binding. 100 Ark. 496; 20 L. R. A. 821; 9 R. C L. 1186; 118 Ark. 166; 80 Ark. 108.
W F. Reeves, for appellee.
The ordinance granting the franchise to Barnett was not legally passed. C. & M. Digest, § 7502.
Appellee, Ed Mays, doing business individually under the style of Mays Manufacturing Company, owned an electric light plant in the city of Leslie and operated the same under a franchise granted by the city council for the purpose of furnishing electric light to the inhabitants of the city. In the operation of the plant he generated electricity by machinery used in a mill plant which he owned. Appellee sold the electric light plant to appellant, A. L. Barnett, by bill of sale executed July 23, 1920, but this sale did not include the dynamo and other machinery in the mill plant where the electricity was generated. In fact, appellee did not at that time own the dynamo in use.
According to the testimony adduced in the present litigation, it is clear that the terms of the sale by appellee to appellant Barnett contemplated that appellee would not re-enter the business of furnishing electric lights or interfering in any way with the operation of the plant sold to Barnett. At the time this sale was consummated, appellee had surrendered his franchise to the Corporation Commission, and appellant Barnett had obtained from the city council a new franchise. Barnett had likewise obtained a permit from the Corporation Commission. Barnett proceeded to perfect his plant by installing the necessary machinery and making other preparations.
This action was instituted by appellant Barnett, the city of Leslie joining therein, to restrain appellee from attempting to furnish electricity to inhabitants of the city and from using the streets and alleys over and along which to string wires, and from otherwise interfering with Barnett's operation of the electric light plant under the new franchise granted to him.
Appellee, in his answer, denied all the allegations with respect to his attempt to furnish electricity to other parties, or the use of the streets and alleys of the city, but alleged that he owned two mill plants, one inside the corporate limits of the city and the other just outside, and that all he was doing was to generate electricity at one of the plants for use in his business at both plants and to transmit the same over wires erected along the right-of-way of the railroad.
The issues were tried before the court, and there was a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity.
It is as before stated, clear that appellee should not engage in furnishing electric light to the public. There is no contention in the brief here on the part of appellee that he reserved the right to continue in the business of furnishing electricity. On the contrary, he claims that he has made no such attempt, and is only engaged in generating electricity for his own use in the manufacturing plants which he operates, and that he has not used the streets and alleys, but is merely operating a wire erected along the right- of-way of the railroad, having obtained a permit from the railroad company to do so. Appellee does, however, dispute the right of appellants to maintain this action on the ground that the franchise granted by the city to Barnett is void because the ordinance granting same was not enacted in the mode prescribed by statute in that it was not read on three different days as required by statute. Crawford & Moses' Digest, § 7502. The statute referred to only requires that the procedure mentioned must be observed in the passage of "by-laws and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
El Dorado v. Citizens' Light & Power Co.
...fact that this question has already been expressly decided by this court against the contention of appellant. We held in Barnett v. Mays, 153 Ark. 1, 239 S.W. 379, that the statute (Crawford & Moses' Digest, § requiring that "all by-laws and ordinances of a general or permanent nature shall......
-
Citizens' Pipe Line Co. v. Twin City Pipe Line Co.
... ... other persons than the Harding glass plant, nor to it without ... the permission of the city first obtained, authorizing it to ... do so. Barnett v. Mays, 153 Ark. 1, 239 ... S.W. 379; Sanderson v. Texarkana, 103 Ark ... 529, 146 S.W. 105; Adkins v. Harrington, ... 164 Ark. 280, 261 S.W ... ...
-
Bohannon v. State
...152 Ark. 380; 146 Ark. 206; 53 Ark. 387; Clayton v. State, 159 Ark. 592; 156 Ark. 525; 141 Ark. 504; 150 Ark. 220; 114 Ark. 239; 153 Ark. 1. 3. testimony as to the four other checks of $ 25 each found in possession of appellant, was admissible as tending to show guilty knowledge or intent. ......
-
Citizens Pipe Line Co. v. Twin City Pipe Line Co.
...persons than the Harding glass plant, nor to it, without the permission of the city first obtained authorizing it to do so. Barnett v. Mays, 153 Ark. 1, 239 S. W. 379; Sanderson v. Texarkana, 103 Ark. 534, 146 S. W. 105; Adkins v. Harrington, 164 Ark. 280, 261 S. W. 626. It expressly denied......