First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America v. Reed, 5--5090
| Decision Date | 19 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5090,5--5090 |
| Parties | The FIRST PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. Ted REED et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. B. Brady, Little Rock, for appellant.
Lightle & Tedder, Searcy, for appellees.
This appeal comes from a circuit court judgment affirming that part of a county court judgment entered on February 7, 1967, in which it was found that a strip of land 50 feet in width and about 156 feet long in Country Club addition on Eden Island was a previously dedicated public road. In it the county court accepted this tract as a portion of the county road system. The judgment was entered in a proceeding instituted by appellees on October 13, 1966, by filing a pleading entitled 'Petition to open County Road.' On the same date certain of the appellees published notice dated October 6, 1966, stating that the petition would be filed on October 13. In this petition it was alleged that this strip had been used for a time as an access road to Sunset Addition on Eden Island but was later barricaded so that it could not be used. It was also alleged that there had been an agreement between the developers of Sunset Addition (owned by one of appellees) and Eden Isle Development Corporation (owned by appellant) that an access road in this area would be made available and that no other reasonable means of access was available to the petitioners. Additional statements in the petition asserted that it was necessary and in the public interest that this road be opened and that the court declare this to be a county road. Appellees prayed for an order laying out and dedicating the 'access way' described as a county road.
Appellees ask that we dismiss the appeal because appellant failed to file its prayer for appeal, affidavit for appeal and complaint in the circuit court within 10 days following the entry of the county court order or before the expiration of the term of the county court at which it was rendered. This objection to jurisdiction was first raised in this court. It is not necessary that we determine whether this omission was fatal to jurisdiction as we held in Drainage District No. 7 of Craighead County v. Stuart, 104 Ark. 113, 147 S.W. 460, or was waived by appellees' appearance in the circuit court, taking substantive steps without moving in that court to dismiss the appeal as we held in J. R. Wulff et al. Drainage Dist. No. 4 v. Davis, 108 Ark. 291, 157 S.W. 384. We find that one of appellant's four points for reversal requires disposition of this case for a jurisdictional defect fatal to the original proceeding. When the court in which the action is filed has no jurisdiction, the appellate court should dismiss the whole case for want of jurisdiction. Pendleton v. Fowler, 6 Ark. 41; Fitzgerald v. Beebe, 7 Ark. 305, 46 Am.Dec. 285; School District No. 11 v. Williams, 38 Ark. 454; Smyrna Baptist Church v. Burbridge, 205 Ark. 108, 167 S.W.2d 501. The circuit court judgment must be reversed and the proceeding dismissed for want of jurisdiction in the county court, so we only discuss appellant's point raising the jurisdictional question. 1 This point, raised below, is based upon the fact that only six persons joined in the original petition.
Arkansas Statutes Annotated § 76--902 (Repl. 1957) requires that a petition to open a county road be signed by at least 10 freeholders of the county. This is a proceeding provided by Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 76--901--915 (Repl. 1957) (). 2 The county court can only acquire jurisdiction of a proceeding under these sections when there is strict compliance with the requirements of the act relating to the signing of the petition. Rust v. Kocourek, 130 Ark. 39, 196 S.W. 938; Polk v. Road Improvement District No. 2, 123 Ark. 334, 185 S.W. 453; Howard v. State, 47 Ark. 431, 440, 2 S.W. 331. Since this was not the case here, neither the county court, the circuit court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foster v. Jefferson County Quorum Court
...has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal and should dismiss the case for want of jurisdiction. See The First Pyramid Life Insurance Co. of America v. Reed, 247 Ark. 1003, 449 S.W.2d 178 (1970). Jurisdiction must be determined entirely from the pleadings, and if it is not established by the pl......
-
Priest v. Polk
...When the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, the appellate court also lacks jurisdiction. First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Reed, 247 Ark. 1003, 449 S.W.2d 178 (1970). Accordingly, the question of subject-matter jurisdiction is one that this court is obligated to raise on its own. ......
-
Head v. Caddo Hills School Dist. No. 8, 82-165
...question which we can address at any time. State v. Glenn, 267 Ark. 501, 592 S.W.2d 116 (1980); First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. of America v. Reed, 247 Ark. 1003, 449 S.W.2d 178 (1970); Smyrna Baptist Church v. Burbridge, 205 Ark. 108, 167 S.W.2d 501 A probationary teacher's remedy for an illeg......
-
Metro Riverboat Associates, Inc. v. Louisiana Gaming Control Bd.
...court of appeal itself acquired no appellate jurisdiction because the district court had none. See, e.g., First Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Reed, 247 Ark. 1003, 449 S.W.2d 178, 179 (1970); MedX, Inc. v. Templet, 633 So.2d 311, 314-15 (La.App. 1 Cir.1993); Godchaux Sugars, Inc. v. Ockman, 68 So......