Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1908-07-08

court of the county at the instance of the party aggrieved, or on the inter-
 taxpayer of such county
 As there is no question of any al-
 loWance in this case against the coun- i ty it is self-evident that the appeal herein cannot be sustained under the
 above provision.
 Article VII Section 33 of the consti- tuition and the statute, Section 14S7
 kirby's Digest, passed in pursuance
 of it, provide that Appeals shall be
 granted as a matter of right # * *
 from all final orders and judgments
 of the county court a " :. by the party
 aggrieved filing an affidavit" etc. 1 Chapter 49, Section 16, Gould's Di-
 gest, was similar to this provision and
 gave a right of appeal, in general
 terms from all orders of the county
 court made in allowing claims for or
 against county, but it was held that
 no appeal would lie to the circuit
 court in behalf of the county; it could
 only be taken by the party directly
 interested-the claimant
 As authority Judge Grace here cites
 the case of Chicot county against
 Tilghman. 26 Ark, 461, and says that
 this case has ben followed and approv-
 ed in many subsequent cases, among
 them being Hudson vs. Jefferson coun-
 ty, 2S Ark, 361; Yoe vs. Mooret ct
 al, 29 Ark, 121; Austin vs. Crawford
 county, 30 Ark, SIS: and others.
 In Levy ex parte, 43 Arkansas. 49,
 Levy was the petitioner for liquor license which was denied and he ap- | pealed. He was clearly "the party aggrieved.
 After citing various other cases | Judge Grace reviews the case of Moses vs. Kearney, 31 Arkansas. 261,
 which was an application by citizens of Springfield for mandamus to com pei the county clerk to remove his of flee from LeWisburg to that place, al lesing that Springfield was the legal county seat and that it had been re- moved to Lewisburg without authority
 and further that no tax had been levied by the county court to pay the citizens for lots which tEey owned in Springfield. The Supreme Court said. 'lf the petitioners have no interest except such as is common to the rest Ot the community the court be- low correctly refused them the writ and then having decided that Section 30, Chapter A., Goulds Digest had
 been repealed, said further, what ever interest or right the appellants
 had, not common to all the people of the county of Conway * * s was swept away and abrogated by it's repeal The relief prayed was therefore denied Oil the ground that the petitioners had no such special interest in the subject matter as entitled them to a hearing in court. The principle involved is the same as in the case at bar and supports the conclusion that the words party aggrieved" as used in our statutes mean and refer to one who is a party of record to the pro- ceedings and has direct personal in terest in it, and do not include all per sons who happen to be displeased by the action of court in the discharge of it's duty, where the interests of the State or county alone are invovled and the injury if any, is common to the whole community. This view-that the party aggrieved' means "one who has an appealable interest, that is. where the judgment so affects a party to the record that he would derive a substantial benefit from it's modifica- tion or reyersal'-is sustained by the decisions in many states collected and cited in Ency. Pl. & Pr. pp. 160 161.
 In Holford V. Kirkland. n Ark. Sf ] decided Dec. 6, 1902 it was held "Where in proceeding to set in force the three-mile Prohibition law the rec ord of the county court shows that
 TX and others" appeared and resist
 ed the petition, without showing who the *others" were, and that .G" filed
 an affidavit and prayed an appeal to the circuit court, the appeal was pro