Court Opinion

ID: 9858432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 16:23:24.4433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:21.596881
License: Public Domain

JohN A. FoglemaN, Justice, dissenting.. I dissent only as to the remand of this case. I agree with the academic statements of the majority with reference to remand of a law case-for a new ■trial. The great' difficulty is that none of them are applicable here. The statement from Pennington v. Underwood, 56 Ark. 53, 19 S. W. 108, is dictum. The court entered judgment for the defendant here instead of remanding. I have found two cases where this court, under what were declared to be unusual circumstances, remanded a case for a new trial upon a reversal for failure of the trial court to direct a verdict. Reynolds Metals Company v. Ball, 217 Ark. 579, 232 S. W. 2d 441; Hayes Brothers Flooring Co. v. Carter, Adm’x, 240 Ark. 522, 401 S. W. 2d 6. On the other hand, there are numerous cases which were dismissed upon such a holding here. Some of them are: Arkansas Cotton Oil Co. v. Carr, 89 Ark. 50, 115 S. W. 925; Arkansas Natural Gas Co. v. Gallagher, 111 Ark. 247, 163 S. W. 791; American National Ins. Co. v. Hamilton, 192 Ark. 765, 94 S. W. 2d 710; Temple Cotton Oil Co. v. Brown, 198 Ark. 1076, 132 S. W. 2d 791; Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. Casson, 199 Ark. 1140, 138 S. W. 2d 406; Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. v. Kennedy, 199 Ark. 914, 136 S. W. 2d 470; Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Moore, 199. Ark. 1035, 138 S. W. 2d 384; Pacific National Fire Ins. Co. v. Suit, 201 Ark. 767, 147 S. W. 2d 346; Tucker Duck & Rubber Co. v. Harvey, 202 Ark. 1033, 154 S. W. 2d 828; Twin City Pipe Line Co. v. Butler, 203 Ark. 240, 156 S. W. 2d 222; Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Drake, 204 Ark. 964, 165 S. W. 2d 947; Woodard v. Holliday, 235 Ark. 744, 361 S. W. 2d 744; Twin City Amusement Co., Inc. v. Salater, 237 Ark. 206, 372 S. W. 2d 224. It is true that in each one of the latter cases the court made the usual comment about the case having been fully developed, hut I think the statement would be just as appropriate here. Be that as it may, I feel that this is an action which brings about an unfair situation. If the trial judge had directed a verdict, as we say he should, we would have affirmed and there would have been no chance for appellee to have a. second attempt at his proof. Thus we have put a premium for plaintiffs on the erroneous failure of a trial judge to direct a verdict. This produces, in my opinion, a wholly undesirable and indefensible result and one that will haunt trial judges and this court from henceforth.