Davie v. Davie

• Decision Date: 23 November 1889
• Citation: 12 S.W. 558
• Parties: DAVIE <I>et al.</I> <I>v.</I> DAVIE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

12 S.W. 558

DAVIE et al.v.

DAVIE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 23, 1889.

Appeal from circuit court, White county; M. T. SANDERS, Judge.

Ejectment by E. M. Davie and others against J. M. Davie. The case was transferred to equity, and plaintiffs appeal from the decree.

W. R. Coody, for appellant.

COCKRILL, C. J.

The right of appeal is limited in general to final judgments, and does not extend to interlocutory orders. Ex parte Railway Co., 39 Ark. 82. The object of the limitation is to present the whole cause here for determination in a single appeal, and thus prevent the unnecessary expense and delay of repeated appeals. A judgment in equity is understood ordinarily to be interlocutory when inquiry as to matter of law or fact is directed preparatory to a final adjudication of the rights of the parties. Beebe v. Russell, 19 How. 283. But "where the decree decides the right to the property in contest, and directs it to be delivered up, or directs it to be sold, and the complainant is entitled to have it carried into immediate execution, the decree must be regarded as final to that extent, although it may be necessary, by a further decree, to adjust the account between the parties." Forgay v. Conrad, 6 How. 206; Thomson v. Dean, 7 Wall. 342. The appeal is allowed in such cases to prevent irreparable injury pending the suit. It is allowed, also, where a distinct and severable branch of the cause is finally determined, although the suit is not ended. State v. Shall, 23 Ark. 601; Nichol v. Dunn, 25 Ark. 129. But the unnecessary splitting of causes by courts of chancery creates confusion and difficulty in practice, and is condemned. Tucker v. Yell, 25 Ark. 431; Hicks v. Hogan, 36 Ark. 298; Drake v. Thyng, 37 Ark. 228; Forgay v. Conrad, supra. In this case, while the decree takes the form of a final order in adjudicating the parties' proportionate interests in the land, it is apparent that the court has not fully adjudicated that branch of the cause. The relative interests of the parties in the land has been ascertained and determined, but the cause is retained, with a reference to a master, who is directed to report at a subsequent term, and the court is yet to determine, upon the coming in of the report, what amount shall be charged as a lien upon the several interests, and whether there shall be a sale of some of the interests to satisfy the same. The decree does not direct its execution, but looks to further judicial action before that event....