H. E. McConnell and Son v. Sadle
| Decision Date | 29 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--5339,5--5339 |
| Citation | 248 Ark. 1182,455 S.W.2d 880 |
| Parties | H. E. McCONNELL & SON et al., Appellants, v. Frances SADLE, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Cockrill, Laser, McGehee, Sharp & Boswell, Little Rock, for appellants.
This is a workmen's compensation case, being an appeal from a judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, in which that court affirmed an order rendered by the commission in favor of claimant, Mrs. Frances Sadle. However, only one issue was passed upon, and the order is not reviewable because it does not constitute a final order. Mrs. Sadle filed a claim for dependency benefits alleging that she was the widow of Lou M. Sadle, who allegedly died as a result of an accidental injury in the course of his employment with H. E. McConnell & Son on February 5, 1967. The claim is controverted in its entirety by the McConnell company and its insurance carrier. However, the only question passed upon by the referee and the full commission was whether Mrs. Sadle was the legal widow and dependent of Lou Sadle. The commission found for claimant, but held in abeyance the question of whether decedent's death arose out of and during the course of his employment. Thus, an adjudication of the one issue presented would not determine whether the claim should be allowed.
While no objections to the determination of this one phase of the litigation are raised by the parties, as pointed out in Worth Insurance Company v. Patching, termination of this one phase of the litigation are raised by the parties, as pointed out in Worth Insurance Company v. Patching, 241 Ark. 620, 410 S.W.2d 125, the want of a final order is a matter that we raise ourselves, and under Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--2101 (Repl.1962), we are limited to a review of final judgments and decrees. As pointed out in Piercy v. Baldwin, 205 Ark. 413, 168 S.W.2d 1110...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Purser v. Corpus Christi State Nat. Bank, 73-308
...expiration of the term and dismisses him from court or concludes his rights to the subject matter in controversy. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880; Johnson v. Johnson, 243 Ark. 656, 421 S.W.2d 605: Fox v. Pinson, 177 Ark. 381, 6 S.W.2d 518; Flanagan v. Drainage Distri......
-
Humphrey v. Faulkner Nursing Center, CA
...705 S.W.2d 901 (1986). We also observed that the general rule applies to workers' compensation appeals. See H.E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880 (1970), and Cooper Indus. Products v. Meadows, 269 Ark. 966, 601 S.W.2d 275 However, in Gina Marie Farms our court also re......
-
Boyett v. Boyett, 79-329
...proceed further therewith. * * * See also, Allred v. National Old Line Ins. Co., 245 Ark. 893, 435 S.W.2d 104; H. E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880. The filing of the motion for a declaratory judgment in the divorce proceeding was nothing more than a request that th......
-
Hampton and Crain v. Black
...the final adjudication of a cause by appealing from the separate order of the court as the cause progresses." H.E. McConnell & Son v. Sadle, 248 Ark. 1182, 455 S.W.2d 880 (1970) (quoting McPherson v. Consolidated Casualty Co., 105 Ark. 324, 151 S.W. 283 (1912)). The reason for the general r......