owner privilege in Arkansas

1953The Addressograph Co. v. The Office Appliance Co., 106 Ark. 536 , 153 S. W. 804 ; Greenspann v. Miller, 111 Ark. 190 , 163 S. W. 776 .” In American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law of Agency, in § 446, the holdings are summarized in this language: “An agent whose compensation is conditional upon his performance of specified services or his accomplishment of a specified result within a specified time is not entitled to the agreed compensation unless he renders the services or achieves the result within such time, except where the principal, in bad faith, has prevented him from doing so. ’

1953The Addressograph Co. v. The Office Appliance Co., 106 Ark. 536 , 153 S. W. 804 ; Greenspann v. Miller, 111 Ark. 190 , 163 S. W. 776 .” In American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law of Agency, in § 446, the holdings are summarized in this language: “An agent whose compensation is conditional upon his performance of specified services or his accomplishment of a specified result within a specified time is not entitled to the agreed compensation unless he renders the services or achieves the result within such time, except where the principal, in bad faith, has prevented him from doing so. ’

1953The Addressograph Co. v. The Office Appliance Co., 106 Ark. 536 , 153 S. W. 804 ; Greenspann v. Miller, 111 Ark. 190 , 163 S. W. 776 .” In American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law of Agency, in § 446, the holdings are summarized in this language: “An agent whose compensation is conditional upon his performance of specified services or his accomplishment of a specified result within a specified time is not entitled to the agreed compensation unless he renders the services or achieves the result within such time, except where the principal, in bad faith, has prevented him from doing so. ’

1953The Addressograph Co. v. The Office Appliance Co., 106 Ark. 536 , 153 S. W. 804 ; Greenspann v. Miller, 111 Ark. 190 , 163 S. W. 776 .” In American Law Institute’s Restatement of the Law of Agency, in § 446, the holdings are summarized in this language: “An agent whose compensation is conditional upon his performance of specified services or his accomplishment of a specified result within a specified time is not entitled to the agreed compensation unless he renders the services or achieves the result within such time, except where the principal, in bad faith, has prevented him from doing so. ’

1917In Finley v. Shemwell, 94 Ark. 190 , we announced the law as follows: “It is settled by the decisions of this court that, while ownership of lands on one or both sides of a navigable stream entitles the owner to the privilege of keeping a public ferry, the right can not be exercised without procuring a license from the county court.

1915The case was heard by the chancellor upon the pleadings and depositions of numerous witnesses and there was a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity. (1-2) It is well established by the decisions of this court that ownership of lands on both sides of a navigable stream entitles the owner to the privilege of keeping a ferry under license from the county court, and that “when the county court has once granted the privilege of keeping a public ferry the privilege is exclusive within the distance so long as it is exercised under the annual grant of license provided for.” Murray v. Mene

1915The case was heard by the chancellor upon the pleadings and depositions of numerous witnesses and there was a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity. (1-2) It is well established by the decisions of this court that ownership of lands on both sides of a navigable stream entitles the owner to the privilege of keeping a ferry under license from the county court, and that “when the county court has once granted the privilege of keeping a public ferry the privilege is exclusive within the distance so long as it is exercised under the annual grant of license provided for.” Murray v. Mene

1910Murray v. Menefee, 20 Ark. 561 ; Bell v. Clegg, 25 Ark. 26 ; Haynes v. Wells, 26 Ark. 464 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.

1965Schelin v. Goldberg, 188 Pa. Super. 341 , 146 A. 2d 648 .

1965Schelin v. Goldberg, 188 Pa. Super. 341 , 146 A. 2d 648 .

1956Or, to put it differently, it must appear that the other contracting party looked to the fund itself for payment and did not rely on the personal responsibility of the owner of the claim of which the fund was the result.” Another similar case is Winslow v. Becker, 154 Or. 336 , 58 P 2d 620 , where there was an attempt to defeat the attorney ’s lien by the son of the Avidow-client inducing his mother to breach her contingent-fee agreement Avith her attorney.

1956Or, to put it differently, it must appear that the other contracting party looked to the fund itself for payment and did not rely on the personal responsibility of the owner of the claim of which the fund was the result.” Another similar case is Winslow v. Becker, 154 Or. 336 , 58 P 2d 620 , where there was an attempt to defeat the attorney ’s lien by the son of the Avidow-client inducing his mother to breach her contingent-fee agreement Avith her attorney.

1938Company, 23 Mo. App. 546 .

1926See Bohn v. McCarthy, 11 N. W. 127 ; Martin v. Swift, 12 N. E. 201 ; Risse v. Hopkins, 40 Pac. 904 .

1926Digest), as quoted above, was- only intended to give the owner the privilege of requiring a bond so as to obviate liens of laborers and mechanics and material furnishers, and to give a lien on a building or other improvement in favor of subcontractors, laborers or materialmen for the full amount of their respective claims in the event the bond be not given.” See also Acme Brich Co. v. Swim supra. A like construction in other jurisdictions has been given statutes having a similar purport to our statute, as we construe it.

1915The case was heard by the chancellor upon the pleadings and depositions of numerous witnesses and there was a decree dismissing the complaint for want of equity. (1-2) It is well established by the decisions of this court that ownership of lands on both sides of a navigable stream entitles the owner to the privilege of keeping a ferry under license from the county court, and that “when the county court has once granted the privilege of keeping a public ferry the privilege is exclusive within the distance so long as it is exercised under the annual grant of license provided for.” Murray v. Mene

1910Murray v. Menefee, 20 Ark. 561 ; Bell v. Clegg, 25 Ark. 26 ; Haynes v. Wells, 26 Ark. 464 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.

1910Murray v. Menefee, 20 Ark. 561 ; Bell v. Clegg, 25 Ark. 26 ; Haynes v. Wells, 26 Ark. 464 ; Little Rock & Fort Smith Ry.