Spruill v. Hamilton

Decision Date19 June 1944
Docket Number4-7406
CitationSpruill v. Hamilton, 181 S.W.2d 35, 207 Ark. 468 (Ark. 1944)
PartiesSpruill v. Hamilton
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Grant Circuit Court; Thos. E. Toler, Judge.

Appeal Dismissed.

Isaac McClellan, for appellant.

Ed F. McDonald, for appellee.

OPINION

McFaddin Justice.

The question argued by the parties is whether the complaint and amendments state a cause of action; but we do not reach that question because we hold that there was no final order in the circuit court from which an appeal would lie to this court.

Appellees filed action in the circuit court praying damages for $ 1,300 for defendants (appellants') failure to complete a real estate transaction. There were three amendments to the complaint and also a response to a motion to make more definite and certain: all of which, with the original complaint, made five pleadings seeking to state a cause of action. The defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint and all amendments; and the following appears as the order of the court:

"The demurrer of the defendants filed herein was by the court overruled. To which ruling of the court the defendants at the time objected and excepted and asked that its exceptions be noted of record, which is accordingly done.

"And thereafter, the defendants refused to plead further, desiring to stand on their demurrer, and plaintiff did not desire to plead further.

"And thereupon defendants prayed the court to grant to it an appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Arkansas, which was by the court allowed; and defendants were given 90 days from February 21, 1944, within which to prepare and file its bill of exceptions."

The above is the only entry in the transcript that purports or attempts to be a final order; and we hold that the said entry -- as copied above -- was not a final or appealable order. The complaint was for unliquidated damages and we cannot tell from the above order how much, if anything, the plaintiffs were to recover.

In Stewart v. Mt. Olive Stave Company, 280 S.W. 357 (noted but not reported in 170 Ark. 1194), the order was: "On this day comes the defendant, by F. E. Brown, its attorney, and files a demurrer to the amended complaint, which is presented to the court, and, after hearing the argument of counsel, the court, being well and sufficiently advised in the premises, sustains said demurrer, and the plaintiff duly excepts to the order and ruling of the court and declines to plead further, prays an appeal to the Supreme Court, which is granted, and is allowed four months in which to prepare and file his bill of exceptions."

And of that order Mr. Justice Humphreys, speaking for this court said: "Under the consistent ruling of this court the order in question was not a final or appealable order. ...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 cases
  • Horton v. City of Paragould
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1974
    ...court sustaining the demurrer was not a final judgment but was interlocutory merely.' See also the more recent case of Spruill v. Hamilton, 207 Ark. 468, 181 S.W.2d 35, and cases cited The appellants simply argue the merits of the cause under their contention that the trial court erred when......
  • Leonard v. Aviation Credit Corporation
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1944