Arkansas State Highway Commission v. McNeil, 5-182
| Decision Date | 16 November 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-182,5-182 |
| Citation | 262 S.W.2d 129,222 Ark. 643 |
| Parties | ARKANSAS STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION v. McNEIL et ux. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. R. Thrasher and William L. Terry, Little Rock, John L. Hughes, Benton, for appellant.
Ernest Briner, Benton, for appellees.
In all but two material respects this case is similar to, and is governed by, our decision last week in Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Palmer, 261 S.W.2d 772. In both cases the Highway Commission applied to the county court of Saline County for an order condemning a right of way for state highway. Both applications were granted by the county court. This case differs first from the Palmer suit in that these landowners, after the rendition of the condemnation order, refused to permit the Highway Commission to enter upon their lands. The Commission thereupon brought suit in the Saline Chancery Court for a restraining order. On January 14, 1952, the chancellor entered an order restraining the appellees from interfering with the Commission's entry upon the land, but the order was conditioned upon the Commission's depositing $15,000 to guarantee the payment of any damages that the appellees might suffer by reason of the entry. The Commission promptly made the required deposit and began construction of the highway.
In this case, as in the Palmer litigation, the landowners filed a claim in the county court and, after a hearing on the claim, appealed from an allowance which they thought to be inadequate. Both cases were tried before a jury in the Saline Circuit Court, this one resulting in a verdict and judgment for the appellees in the sum of $17,000. The second point of distinction between this and the earlier case is that here the court's jurisdiction to render judgment against the State was not questioned either at the trial in the circuit court or in the motion for a new trial. Nevertheless the Commission relies upon the court's lack of jurisdiction as the principal ground for reversal.
We think the Commission's position upon this issue must be upheld. Of course it is true that when the State voluntarily undertakes litigation and submits itself to the jurisdiction of the courts, it must be treated as other litigants and must be bound by the actions of its attorneys. But the point is that the State is not lawfully subject to liability in this case. The Palmer case and its predecessors have established the rule that in a proceeding such as this one,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darnall v. State
...court. It was not argued in the briefs. Immunity of a sovereign state may not be waived by its attorneys, Arkansas State Highway Commission v. McNeil, 222 Ark. 643, 262 S.W.2d 129, or Attorney General, Dunn v. Schmid, 239 Minn. 559, 60 N.W.2d 14. This court may raise the point of its appell......
-
The Texas Co. v. State, 12585
...just as any other citizen. It has no special immunities and privileges when litigating with the citizen.' In Arkansas State Highway Commission v. McNeil, 262 S.W.2d 129, 130, the Supreme Court of Arkansas 'Of course it is true that when the State voluntarily undertakes litigation and submit......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America
...Bush, 195 Ark. 920, 114 S.W.2d 1061; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Palmer, 222 Ark. 603, 261 S.W.2d 772; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. McNeil, 222 Ark. 643, 262 S.W.2d 129; Roesler v. Denton, 239 Ark. 462, 390 S.W.2d 98; Arkansas State Highway Com'n. v. Lasley, 239 Ark. 538, 390 S.W.2......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Roberts, 5--5304
...(1970), Ark., 453 S.W.2d 30; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Partain, 193 Ark. 803, 103 S.W.2d 53; Arkansas State Highway Commission v. McNeil, 222 Ark. 643, 262 S.W.2d 129. While the proceeding to acquire rights-of-way has been called a proceeding in rem, 1 it is also a civil action b......