Renner v. Progressive Life Ins. Co., 4-4001.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1935
• Docket Number: No. 4-4001.,4-4001.
• Citation: 88 S.W.2d 57
• Parties: RENNER v. PROGRESSIVE LIFE INS. CO. et al.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

88 S.W.2d 57

RENNER v. PROGRESSIVE LIFE INS. CO. et al.

No. 4-4001.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 2, 1935.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Benton County; John S. Combs, Judge.

Action by Charles F. Renner against the Progressive Life Insurance Company and others. From the judgment, plaintiff appeals, and defendants move to dismiss the appeal or affirm judgment of lower court.

Appeal dismissed.

John W. Nance, of Rogers, for appellant.

E. M. Arnold, of Springfield, Mo., and Duty & Duty, of Rogers, for appellees.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

On the threshold of this appeal we are confronted with appellees' motion to dismiss the appeal or to affirm the judgment of the lower court because not prosecuted from a final judgment or appealable decree. The history of this litigation necessary to an understanding of the merits of the motion is: In the early part of 1932 appellant brought suit against appellees in the circuit court of Benton county to recover an alleged balance due under a contract of sale of the assets and physical properties of an insurance company; thereafter the complaint was amended and at the September, 1932, term of said court a demurrer was interposed and sustained with leave to appellant to amend. Subsequently the complaint was again amended and at the March, 1934, term of said court appellant dismissed his complaint as amended, without prejudice. Thereafter, and within one year after said dismissal, this suit was instituted by appellant in the Benton chancery court. The complaint thus filed in effect alleged a cause of action for recovery of the balance due on a contract of sale; secondly, that appellees had unlawfully converted the assets of an insurance company which in the main belonged to appellant and his associates. A demurrer to this complaint was interposed by appellees, and upon hearing the court treated same as a motion to transfer to the law court, and upon this theory it was sustained. When the cause reached the law docket, a demurrer was again filed by appellees, and also a motion to dismiss was interposed, and upon a hearing the trial court made and entered the following order: "It is therefore, by the court considered, ordered and adjudged that defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's complaint be, and the same is hereby sustained; that defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint is sustained as to that part of same which seeks to recover the balance due on the contract sued upon, and leave is granted to the plaintiff to...