Bleidt v. 555, Inc.
| Decision Date | 23 October 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--6123,5--6123 |
| Citation | 253 Ark. 348,485 S.W.2d 721 |
| Parties | Valenda BLEIDT, Appellant, v. 555, INC., Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Charles A. Brown, and Jerry D. Jackson, Little Rock, William M. Clark, Conway, for movants.
Boyett & Morgan, by Denny P. Petty, Searcy, Glenn F. Walther, Little Rock, for respondents.
Architectural Products, Inc., and Binswanger Glass Company filed a motion asking this court to remand this case to the Chancery Court of Pulaski County to the extent necessary to invest that court with jurisdiction to try issues among J. E. Lightle, Jr., as receiver of HLB Enterprises, the movants, Nabholz Construction Corporation and St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Nabholz and St. Paul joined in the motion. Appellee 555, Inc., admits that the relief sought by Architectural Products, Inc., and Binswanger could not in any way affect the rights of the parties to the appeal or the funds held by the receiver to which they are entitled regardless of the outcome of this appeal. None of the movants was a party to the proceedings at the time appellant Valenda Bleidt took this appeal. We have denied the motion by per curiam order, which would ordinarily constitute the only action here. Because of the question posed here, we deem it advisable to issue an opinion for the convenience of the bench and bar.
In order that the question presented by the motion be understood, we outline the background as disclosed by the motion and responses. In April 1971, Searcy Glass Company, a subsidiary of HLB Enterprises, Inc., contracted to furnish certain labor and materials to Nabholz Construction Corporation, the prime contractor in the construction of a hospital. Binswanger furnished glass and Architectural Products, Inc., furnished aluminum windows to Searcy Glass Company.
On November 19, 1971, HLB brought an action for damages for trade slander and breach of a covenant not to compete against 555, Inc., and Glen Capps in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County. 555 answered and obtained permission to make appellant Bleidt, First Security Bank and Associates Capital Company third party defendants, alleging that all of them claimed security interests against HLB and foreclosure of these security interests and determination of the rights of these third parties would be necessary. 555 then filed a counterclaim and a cross-complaint against Valenda Bleidt, First Security Bank, Associates Capital Company and Monark Boat Company, claiming that its lien was superior to theirs. 555 also asked that a receiver be appointed to take charge of the assets of HLB. On motion of 555, the cause was transferred to equity on January 3, 1972.
On April 5, 1972, the chancery court entered the decree from which this appeal was taken. The plaintiff had taken a nonsuit, so the cause was heard upon the counterclaim and cross-complaint of 555, and the complaints of Valenda Bleidt and First Security Bank for foreclosure. The decree included judgments in favor of the Bank and appellant Bleidt who were held to have security interests in assets of HLB. The court declared that the lien of First Security Bank was paramount to those of the others then parties to the proceeding and that the security interest of Valenda Bleidt was inferior to that of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carlucci v. Carlucci
...of a contrary statute, the rule is overwhelmingly accepted. Barran v. Roden, 263 Ala. 305, 82 So.2d 398 (1955); Bleidt v. 555, Inc., 253 Ark. 348, 485 S.W.2d 721 (1972); Hunter v. Hunter, 155 Colo. 516, 395 P.2d 604 (1964); Bailey v. Bailey, 392 So.2d 49 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1981); Swindle v. S......
-
Sherman v. State, CR
...are left within the jurisdiction and control of the trial court, notwithstanding the appeal. Bleidt v. 555, Inc., 253 Ark. 348, 350-51, 485 S.W.2d 721, 723 (1972) (per curiam) (citations omitted). In stating the foregoing rule of law, this court relied upon 4A C.J.S. 399, 413, Appeal and Er......
-
Fewell v. Pickens, 01-339
...court. Id., 327 Ark. at 412 (quoting Sherman v. State, 326 Ark. 153, 158, 931 S.W.2d 417, 421 (quoting Bleidt v. 555, Inc., 253Ark. 348, 350-51, 485 S.W.2d 721, 723 (1972) (per curiam)); see also Marsh & McLennan of Arkansas v. Herget, 321 Ark. 180, 900 S.W.2d 195 First, it should be noted ......
-
Nameloc, Inc. v. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A.
...notice of appeal filed July 14, 2004, only sought review of the order "striking defendant's counterclaim." In Bleidt v. 555, Inc., 253 Ark. 348, 485 S.W.2d 721, 723 (1972), we The rule that an appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction applies only to matters necessarily or directly inv......