Patrick v. Wood
| Decision Date | 06 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4334,5--4334 |
| Citation | 243 Ark. 418,420 S.W.2d 92 |
| Parties | Basil PATRICK et ux., Petitioners, v. Warren E. WOOD, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Guy H. Jones, Conway, and Phil Stratton, Little Rock, for appellants.
Gannaway & Darrow, Little Rock, for appellee.
This is a petition for prohibition. At issue is the question of whether the Pulaski Circuit Court dismissed cause No. 56930 therein pending, in which Vada Cowan was plaintiff and Basil Patrick and Florence Patrick, his wife, were defendants.
The docket sheet shows that Vada Cowan's complaint for injuries arising out of an automobile collision in North Little Rock was filed on December 3, 1964. On December 18 the case was assigned to the Second Division of Pulaski Circuit Court. Defendants' motion for summary judgment and their answer and counterclaim were filed on December 28, 1964. On January 5, 1965, plaintiff filed her answer to defendants' counterclaim. The next docket notation is on March 13, 1967, dismissing the cause for failure to prosecute. On April 28, 1967, the Pulaski Circuit Court entered its order setting aside the 'dismissal of failure to prosecute.'
After the March 13, 1967 dismissal for failure to prosecute in the Pulaski Circuit Court, Basil Patrick et ux., on April 13, 1967, filed a complaint in the Faulkner Circuit Court for injuries arising out of the same accident. Service on this complaint was obtained on Vada Cowan in Pulaski County on April 17, 1967.
The order of dismissal of March 13, 1967, in the Pulaski Circuit Court is as follows:
'PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, MARCH TERM, 1967
'By order of the (court) upon it's own motion after reviewing the civil docket and finding that there has been no activity in the following cases for a substantial length of time; notices having been sent in these cases and no notices having been sent in others, said cases are to be dismissed for failure to prosecute without prejudice to wit:
'VADA COWAN PLAINTIFF
VS
'BASIL PATRICK and
'FLORENCE PATRICK DEFENDANTS'
The record does not show that the foregoing order was signed by the court.
The Pulaski Circuit Court order which was signed by the judge on April 28, 1967, provides:
'The Court finds that on March 9, 1967 it denied the motion of Florence Patrick for summary judgment, and on that some date mailed to Attorneys Guy H. Jones, Homer Tanner and Bert Darrow a letter enclosing a copy of the order denying said motion and notifying the attorneys that this court had set this case for trial on June 27, 1967.
'The Court further finds that thereafter on March 13, 1967 one of the deputy clerks of this Court inadvertently made a notation on the docket that this case had been dismissed for failure to prosecute, that this docket notation should not have been made, that it in no way constituted a dismissal of this case and that this case is now fully pending in this Court and has been continously without interruption.
'IT IS THERFORE BY THE COURT CONSIDERED, ORDERED AND ADJUDGED...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henderson v. Dudley
...236 Ark. 419, 366 S.W.2d 278; Little Rock Distributing Co. v. Ouachita County Circuit Court, 259 Ark. 24, 531 S.W.2d 33; Patrick v. Wood, 243 Ark. 418, 420 S.W.2d 92; Rastle v. Marion County Rural School District No. 1, 260 Ark. 740, 543 S.W.2d 923; Massey v. Enfield, 259 Ark. 85, 531 S.W.2......
-
Pulaski County ex rel. Mears v. Adkisson
...supra; Twin City Lines v. Cummings, 212 Ark. 569, 206 S.W.2d 438; Rodriguez v. Adkisson, 254 Ark. 128, 491 S.W.2d 814; Patrick v. Wood, 243 Ark. 418, 420 S.W.2d 92. It is never issued to prohibit a trial court from erroneously exercising its jurisdiction. Skinner v. Mayfield, 246 Ark. 741, ......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Roberts, 5--5304
...if the jurisdiction of the trial court depends upon determination of questions of fact. Skinner v. Mayfield, supra; Patrick v. Wood, 243 Ark. 418, 420 S.W.2d 92. On the basis of the record before us, we cannot say that the circuit court is clearly without any jurisdiction. Of course, this d......
- Hensley v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark.