{
  "id": 1447011,
  "name": "Lee v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lee v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.",
  "decision_date": "1942-02-23",
  "docket_number": "4-6627",
  "first_page": "859",
  "last_page": "861",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ark. 859"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "158 S.W.2d 933"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "154 S. W. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Tenn. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8535848
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/127/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S. W. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 Ark. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1517152
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/88/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453507
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/200/0318-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2186,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5202567794493038
    },
    "sha256": "eb109177e20687a5f2df5ba900840231f366ed76581a59c05d44681f2cac1c7e",
    "simhash": "1:2c2d89753404214a",
    "word_count": 354
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:45.785345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lee v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "G-riepin Smith, C. J.\nThe appeal is from a judgment sustaining appellee\u2019s demurrer to appellant\u2019s complaint.\nCarrie C. Lee, doing business as Campus Cafeteria, alleged that on or about October 21,1938, she made written application to the telephone company for a designated service. Appellee, with discriminatory intent, failed to supply the service. The statutory penalty provided by Act 95, approved Feb. 25, 1913, was sought. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 14261. Liability for 847 days was alleged, amounting to $4,285' as of June 10, 1941.\nMay .9, 1939, appellant was adjudged $510 in consequence of a suit alleging discrimination. On appeal to this court the judgment was affirmed. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Lee, 200 Ark. 318, 140 S. W. 2d 132.\nThe amended complaint in the instant case shows that no written request for the class of service alleged to have been withheld was made after the suit was filed which resulted in the 1939 judgment. The statute makes the $5 penahy applicable to each day from expiration of the ten-day period in which the company may comply, and the penalty is cumulative \u2018 \u2018. . . until such demand is complied with or suit is instituted for failure to comply with such demand. . . .\u201d\nAppellant argues the company was informed of her desire for the service that was being withheld; therefore a written demand was unnecessary.\nThe statute, however, is highly penal, and should be strictly construed. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. McClerkin, 88 Ark. 277, 114 S. W. 240.\nThere is but one cause of action, and it has been adjudicated in appellant\u2019s favor. No subsequent written request was made. This fact is ascertainable from the complaint. It follows, therefore, that the court did not err in sustaining the demurrer. See Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Company v. Hartley, 127 Tenn. 184, 154 S. W. 531.\nAffirmed.\nEight hundred forty-seven days at $5 would be $4,235, instead of $4,285, plus $100. This error is immaterial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "G-riepin Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rex W. Perkins and Mallory & Darnell, for appellant.",
      "Bernal Seaonster and Downie & Downie, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lee v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Company.\n4-6627\n158 S. W. 2d 933\nOpinion delivered February 23, 1942.\nRex W. Perkins and Mallory & Darnell, for appellant.\nBernal Seaonster and Downie & Downie, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0859-01",
  "first_page_order": 877,
  "last_page_order": 879
}