Court Opinion

ID: 9825906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 14:18:27.355687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:41:28.473433
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Rehearing The petition for rehearing calls attention to certain matters argued in appellees’ original brief which were not discussed, point by point, in the opinion of January 26, 1942. These objections were considered by the court and the determination was adverse to appellees’ contentions. In an effort to limit the decision to phases thought essential to a correct determination of the litigation, the. cause was remanded with permission to appellees to • present any admissible evidence “. .. . tending to overcome the presumptive verity which attaches to the records referred to in appellants’ brief, which shows that jurisdictional requirements were met in respect of initiation of the Act. ’ ’ It was intended, by this holding, to say that, prima facie,- the Act was valid; that its terms were not violative of constitutional rights, and that the only issue was one of fact: Was the measure legally adopted? The record answered this question affirmatively. The court felt, however, that since appeal ivas from an interlocutory decree, appellees should have the right to challenge the presumptive record. Without discussing constitutionality of Act 355, approved March 25, 1937, (Pope’s Digest, § 7507) we dissolved the interlocutory order, wherein the chancellor had refused to vacate a temporary restraining order. Effect of the decision is to uphold validity of Act 355. This we now expressly affirm. In doing so, however, prior cases must be overruled. Act 355 was sustained in Page v. McKinley, 196 Ark. 331, 118 S. W. 2d 235.1 See, also, Dobbins Brothers v. Anderson, County Judge, 199 Ark. 635, 135 S. W. 2d 325. Neither opinion mentions the fact that similar legislation (Act 69, approved March 23, 1881) had been held void. Batesville & Brinkley Railroad Company, ex parte, 39 Ark. 82; Sanders et al. v. Plunkett et al., 40 Ark. 507; Road Improvement District No. 1 v. Cooper, 150 Ark. 505, 234 S. W. 623, and the case of Miller v. O’Bryan, 36 Ark. 200, there cited. Of. Mallett v. Hampton, 94 Ark. 119, 126 S. W. 92. Earlier holdings .are referred to in the opinion of Chief Justice English in the Batesville & Brinkley Railroad Company ease, in which he says: “My brother judges have come to the conclusion that the Act [of March 23, 1881] is unconstitutional, in which conclusion I am unable to concur, except as to so much of the Act as authorizes one judge of this court to review and reverse the decision of an inferior court or judge, refusing an injunction, and to compel the granting of it by mandamus.” The 1937 Act (No. 355) carries a restriction that “The proceeding’s in other respects in the circuit or chancery court shall not be stayed during the pendency [of an appeal from an interlocutory order] unless otherwise ordered by the court, or by the Supreme 'Court, or a judge thereof.2  The right of one justice, in vacation, to stay proceedings is not involved in the case at bar, and the point is not now decided. What we do decide is that the Page-McKinley case had the necessary effect of overruling former cases holding that the Supreme Court is without power to entertain and determine appeals from trial court action in refusing to set aside interlocutory orders. Modern business, commerce, and even the professions, are such that serious consequences may attend delay in determining whether an order mentioned .in Act 355 has been improvidently granted or denied. It was the legislative intent to relieve against possible error. Wltere an interlocutory order adversely affects a litigant through delay in adjudicating substantive rights, an appeal from the trial court’s refusal to vacate such ordér or to immediately grant a hearing on the merits should be treated as presenting a justiciable issue. We therefore expressly overrule the older cases, and affirm the holding in Page v. McKinley. The petition for rehearing is denied.   Because of a typographical error, the first headnote to Pave v. McKinley, supra, (Arkansas Reports) refers to the Act as No. 335.    Italics supplied.