Davis v. Receivers St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company
| Decision Date | 22 March 1915 |
| Docket Number | 262 |
| Citation | 174 S.W. 1196,117 Ark. 393 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. RECEIVERS ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD COMPANY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court; R. E. Jeffery, Judge; appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed.
Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell, Loughborough & Miles, for appellant.
The court erred in sustaining the demurrer. 170 S.W. 245.
W. F. Evans and W. J. Orr, for appellee.
The order sustaining the demurrer was not a final judgment, and no appeal would lie. Kirby's Digest, § 1188; 99 Ark. 496; 102 Ark. 380; 83 Ark. 371; 94 Ark. 119; 44 Ark. 344; 30 Ark. 665.
App Davis sued the receivers of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to recover the penalty provided in section 6620 of Kirby's Digest, for charging a greater compensation for his transportation as a passenger than is allowed and prescribed by the act. The defendant company demurred to the complaint and the court sustained its demurrer. No judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff and not even a judgment for costs was rendered.
When the court sustained the demurrer the plaintiff had his election to amend his complaint, or, to rest and permit final judgment to be rendered dismissing his complaint and then appeal.
It is well settled in this State that no appeal lies where there is no final judgment. The order of the court sustaining the demurrer was not a final judgment but was interlocutory, merely.
It follows that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Benton County v. Rutherford, 30 Ark. 665; Radford v. Samstag, 113 Ark. 185, 167 S.W. 491, and cases cited; Harlow v. Mason, 117 Ark. 360, 174 S.W. 1163.
It is so ordered.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Independent Ins. Consultants, Inc. v. First State Bank of Springdale, Ark.
...on their complaints, which were dismissed in part. In that situation the court's order is ordinarily final. Davis v. Receivers St. L.L. & S.F.R.R., 117 Ark. 393, 174 S.W. 1196 (1915); Melton v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry., 99 Ark. 433, 139 S.W. 289 (1911). It was not appealable in Renner and B......
-
Horton v. City of Paragould
...order and not from a final order or judgment disposing of the issues. As early as 1915 in the case of Davis v. Receivers of St. L. & S.F. Rd. Co., 117 Ark. 393, 174 S.W. 1196, the defendant demurred to a complaint and the court sustained the demurrer. In the case at bar, as was recited in D......
-
Letaw v. Smith
... ... that: 'This court decided in the case of Davis v. Biddle, 117 Ark. 393, 174 S.W. 1196, that no ... ...
-
Portis v. Board of Public Utilities
...1134; Atkins v. Graham, 99 Ark. 496, 138 S.W. 878; Adams v. Primmer, 102 Ark. 380, 144 S.W. 522; Davis v. Receivers of St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company, 117 Ark. 393, 174 S.W. 1196; State v. Greenville Stone & Gravel Co., 122 Ark. 151, 182 S.W. 555; Fairview Coal Co. v. Arkansas C......