Skinner v. Mayfield
| Decision Date | 21 April 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4848,5--4848 |
| Parties | Charles SKINNER, Petitioner, v. Hon. Melvin E. MAYFIELD, Judge, Respondent. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Brown, Compton, Prewett & Dickens, El Dorado, for petitioner.
Shackleford & Shackleford, El Dorado, for respondent.
This controversy results from an annexation dispute. In this original proceeding the petitioner seeks a writ of prohibition to restrain the respondent from entertaining appeals by certain citizens and taxpayers from a county court order which granted the annexation of a contiguous territory to the City of El Dorado.
The city's petition for the annexation, based upon prior approval of the qualified voters, was filed in the Union County Court on December 19, 1967. The first order for annexation by the county court was made on January 29, 1968. On April 19, 1968, the county court rendered a nunc pro tunc amendment to that order for annexation. This corrected an erroneous description and excluded a small strip of land owned by the petitioner. The objecting taxpayers first filed an affidavit for appeal as aggrieved parties on May 15, 1968 from the April nunc pro tunc order. Then, on June 10, the taxpayers filed an affidavit for appeal as aggrieved parties from the January order for annexation. Both appeals were granted by the Union County Court to the circuit court by orders dated May 15 and June 10, 1968, respectively. The respondent, Union Circuit Court, Second Division, consolidated the appeals and denied petitioner's motion to dismiss the appeals and strike the affidavits for appeals. Also denied was a similar motion by the City of El Dorado. The petitioner asserts that unless the respondent circuit court is prohibited and restrained, it will entertain both appeals from the county court's order which annexed the contiguous territory to the City of El Dorado. The petitioner contends that neither appeal was timely filed because the appeals failed to comply with the thirty-day requirement as provided in Ark.Stat.Ann. § 19--307 (Repl. 1968). It is also petitioner's position that the nunc pro tunc order did not extend the thirty-day period and cites Richardson v. Sallee, 207 Ark. 915, 183 S.W.2d 508 (1944) to that effect.
It is the taxpayers' (appellants from the county court order) position that both appeals were timely filed and that the county court's annexation order should be reversed and made to include the small strip of land which was excluded. They rely upon Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27--2001 (Supp.1967) which provides that appeals are granted as a matter of right to the circuit court from all final orders or judgments of the county court at any time within six months. See, also, Pike v. City of Stuttgart, 200 Ark. 1010, 142 S.W.2d 233 (1940); Jones v. Coffin, 96 Ark. 332, 131 S.W. 873 (1910). It is argued that this particular statute is applicable in the case at bar because their appeals are not complaints to prevent annexation. To the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Midwest Lime Co. v. Independence County Chancery Court
...clearly without jurisdiction, or has clearly acted without authority. Karraz v. Taylor, 259 Ark. 699, 535 S.W.2d 840; Skinner v. Mayfield, 246 Ark. 741, 439 S.W.2d 651. Capital Transportation Co. v. Strait, 213 Ark. 571, 211 S.W.2d 889; Shuman v. Irby, 201 Ark. 907, 147 S.W.2d 358; Schley v......
-
Pulaski County ex rel. Mears v. Adkisson
...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, 439 S.W.2d 651. It does not lie to review an order that has already been made. City National Bank v. Johnson, 191 Ark. 29, 79 S.W.2d 987......
-
Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Roberts, 5--5304
...the tribunal against which it is sought is wholly without jurisdiction. Schley v. Dodge, 206 Ark. 1151, 178 S.W.2d 851; Skinner v. Mayfield, Ark., 439 S.W.2d 651 (1969). It will not be granted if the jurisdiction of the trial court depends upon determination of questions of fact. Skinner v.......
-
Ar Democrat-Gazette et al v Zimmerman
...or one that is threatening to act in excess of its jurisdiction where the remedy by appeal is inadequate. Skinner v. Mayfield, 246 Ark. 741, 439 S.W.2d 651 (1969), and Bassett v. Bourland, 175 Ark. 271, 299 S.W.2d 14 (1927). Since there exists no remedy against the State to restore or grant......