Vale v. Huff

Decision Date18 November 1957
Docket NumberNo. 5-1382,5-1382
Citation306 S.W.2d 861,228 Ark. 272
PartiesWilliam VALE, Administrator, Petitioner, v. C. Floyd HUFF, Jr., Judge, Respondent.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Richard W. Hobbs and B. W. Thomas, Hot Springs, for petitioner.

A. L. Barber, Little Rock, Cooper B. Land, R. Julian Glover, and Sigun Rasmussen, Hot Springs, for respondent.

ROBINSON, Justice.

William Vale, administrator of the estate of William Vale, Jr., has petitioned this Court for a writ of prohibition directed to the respondent, Judge Huff, of the Garland Circuit Court. The controversy grows out of a personal injury action filed in the circuit court against General Motors Corporation and Chitwood Motor Company, a corporation. It is alleged that the plaintiffs were occupants of an automobile manufactured by General Motors Corporation and that the injuries were due to a defective condition of the steering assembly and defective brakes on the automobile in question. The defendants filed a motion asking that the plaintiffs be required to deliver to the clerk of the court all original parts of the automobile in their possession for examination and inspection by the defendants under orders of the court; and they asked that the defendants be permitted to make laboratory, metallurgical and physical inspections in order to determine whether a defect existed. The court granted the motion and made an order permitting the defendants to send the automobile parts to their Detroit laboratory to be examined. The plaintiffs in the circuit court then filed their petition for a writ of prohibition in this Court to prevent the defendants from carrying out the circuit court order.

Ark.Stats. § 28-356, provides:

'Upon motion of any party showing good cause therefor * * * the court in which an action is pending may (1) order any party to produce and permit the inspection and copying or photographing, by or on behalf of the moving party, of any designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters, photographs, objects, or tangible things, not privileged, which constitute or contain evidence relating to any of the matters within the scope of the examination * * *. The order shall specify the time, place, and manner of making the inspection and taking the copies and photographs and may prescribe such terms and conditions as are just.'

Our statute above mentioned permitting the inspection and examination of evidence is an adoption of Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and the courts have repeatedly held that an order for discovery under Rule 34 is interlocutory and not appealable, and a writ of prohibition will not lie. 'An order for discovery under this Rule is interlocutory and not appealable, but is reviewable only on appeal from the final judgment. An appellate court will not issue a writ of prohibition against a trial judge who in the exercise of his discretion has granted discovery.' Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice & Procedure, Vol. 2, § 803. See also: Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 3 Cir., 102 F.2d 702; Zalatuka v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 108 F.2d 405; Fenton v. Walling, 9 Cir., 139 F.2d 608; O'Malley v. Chrysler Corp., 7 Cir., 160 F.2d 35; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Kirkpatrick, 3 Cir., 203 F.2d 149, 150.

In the last mentioned case the court said:

'(1) The petitioner argues that the district judge exceeded his jurisdiction and, therefore, a remedy of mandamus is appropriate to make him stay within it. The argument is transparently inaccurate. It was the function of the judge to decide whether, following the authorities above cited, 'good cause' had been shown. He decided that it had. This was the very kind of a question which it was his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dunaway v. Troutt
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 24, 1960
    ...etc. The trial court has a wide discretion in determining whether good cause is shown for the production of documents. Vale v. Huff, 228 Ark. 272, 306 S.W.2d 861. We cannot say the trial court abused its discretion where the appellants were asking for an investigation of the financial affai......
  • Farm Service Co-op. of Fayetteville v. Cummings
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • February 20, 1978
    ...and not appealable, and a writ of prohibition will not lie. Ark. Motor Coaches v. Taylor, Judge, supra. See also Vale, Admr. v. Huff, Judge, 228 Ark. 272, 306 S.W.2d 861. But, say the petitioners, even if this court should subsequently hold that the trial court's order was in error, or that......
  • Arkansas Motor Coaches Limited v. Taylor
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • March 12, 1962
    ...dismiss, or on matters of defense, or in rendering judgment, is not ground for a writ of prohibition.' Also, in Vale, Adm'r v. Huff, Judge, 228 Ark. 272, 306 S.W.2d 861, we held that an order for discovery is interlocutory and not appealable, and a writ of prohibition will not Writs denied.......
  • Lamb v. Hibbard, 5-1387
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • November 18, 1957
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT