Arkansas true Democrat., 1859-12-07
Abstract of the decisions of the Supreme
 Court of the State of Arkansas.

Lindsay, the appellant, established fer " across Black river at the town of Pow | hatan, Tn Lawrence county, under license from the county court for that purpose | After his ferry had been in operation for a number fyears, Lindley, the appellee, ap- plled to the county court, at January term, | lSo2, fora license to establish ferry across the same stream, near Powhatan and with in one mile of the ferry of the appellant The appellant voluntarily appeared in the county court, made himself party to the proceedings, and contested the grant of license to the applee The court, however, granted the license and the ferry was estab- lished. The appellant then exhibited his bill in chancery, alleging that the establish ment was an illegal interference with his exclusive vested rights as the owner of the previously established ferry, for the reason that the public convenience did not require its establishment
 On the final hearing the court below dis missed the bill and Lindsay appealed The court held:.
 lst County courts are proper tribunals to decide, whether or not, the public con- venience requires the establishment of rival ferries near cities and towns.
 2d. When party is under no legal ob- ligation to appear before the county court, | but does so voluntarily, and makes himself a party to the proceedings, if they are erro- neous, he should pursue his legal remedy for their quashal, which is to put on the record, by bill of exceptions, the evidence adduced on the trial, or so much thereof as is necessary to show the errors complained of, and then invoke the appellate iurisdic- tion of the circuit court by writ of ceriorori.
 3d. If party fails to pursue the course as laid down above, the judgment of the county court will be conclusive, and he can not be heard in a court of equity.
 4th After rival ferry has been estab- lished near city or town by the county court, the question of public convenience is no longer an open one between the parties, subject to an investigation on the occasion of each annual grant of license therefor nor in such cases does the statute require the owner of ferry privilege to make fur ther application.
 As there is no evidence of fraud the de- cree of the court below is affirmed with costs.
 N"l,"S' ms Appeal from Con,coy c. G. in Menefee o'f0"'''y'
 The bill in this case also was brought to prevent the infringement of ferry privi- legc. The proof showed that the ferry of the appellant had the effect to divert. and did divert portion of the travelling pub lie from the ferry of the appellee The prayer of the bill was that the license grant ed to the appellant be canceled, and he re- strained from the further use of his ferry; and tAe court below so decreed.
 The court hetd:
 lst. The grant of license to establish a ferry isa private vested right which the law will not suffer to be infringed by rival ferry, unless the public convenience require #; and not even then, except " at or near cities and towns.''
 2d. A ferry franchise being the creature of sovereign power. no one can exercise it without the consent of the State, and when pursuant to regulations prescribed by the legislature for the general good-itis grant ed in terms exclusive, the law takes care that the grant is not violated and its value impaired; Tn such case court of chancery may be successfully resorted to.
 Sd. The mode of making application for ferry llcense-whether by petition or mo- tion-is not indicated, nor does the stat ute require that notice, special or general ot the application or proceeding, shall be gwen by publication or otherwise. It is not proceeding in personan,; nor a pro- ceedlng 70 rem in that sense which makes all the world parties to 1t, for beside want Ing the characteristics which distinguish a proceeding strictly in rem, the legislature never designed to make the action of the county court conclusive of the private rights ot the citizen without providing, in some manner. for notice of the proceedings by which those rights were destroyed.
 4th. An application under the statute for ferry privilege, is an er porte proceeding. Tn granting or refusing the privelege, the court acts .ludlcially, and its judgment being pronounced Tn amatter touching the public convenlencc-howeve erroneous, is bind Ing and conclusive on all persons who had no other than public interest in the pro- ceedlng, held in common with the rest of the community, and a party possessing q pubic interest merely, cannot question the proceedings even directly by appearance in the county court; but the judgment does not conclude the rights of any one whose proate interest has been invaded by it, un- less by voluntary appearance in the county court he make himself party to the pro ceeding.
 The appellant having failed to prove that there was town when the ferries were es- abolished, and as the appellee did not ap- pear and make himself g party to the pro- ceedlng before the county court, thereby concluding his rights, the decree of the court below is affirmed, with costs.
 '"A',y' ys e' "''' Apped from Prairie C. Ferguson, ct al Oo"'' W o~o"ce'y.
 This was a bill to obtain dover in the land described in the case of Blakeney ps Ferguson a a., 14 Ark, 641, for Mary Ferguson, and partition of the remainder between the other complainants, as heirs at law of Joseph Ferguson, and the heirs of Bew. Bfdkeney. and to establish title, etc. | "" "S"ih"o onc WiuOW ana nelfS Of SIn1DSO11 Gray. The representatives of Sampson Grey flled an answer, disclaiming title to the land The cause was heard upon the pleadlngs, and evidence between the parties, decree in favor of the compIainants in ac- cordance with the prayer of the bill, and an appeal by Blakeney's heirs.
 Tie Court held:
 lst The widow has no dover in an es- tate to which the husband had but an equit- able title
 I'd. Uninterrupted possession of land for seven years, and the payment of taxes charged upon it during that period, are both necessary to entitle claimant to the benett ot the statute of limitation.
 Sd. Where a person at the time of his death, has no legal, but only an equitable title to land, in which his wife is not en- titled to dover, if after his death, his heirs have, by lapse of time or otherwise, ac- quired perfect legal title, this does not enure to the benefit of the widow in her claim for dover.