Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1915

Davis v. Receivers St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad

Supreme Court of Arkansas · Decided March 22, 1915 · Hart

117 Ark. 393; 174 S.W. 1196; 1915 Ark. LEXIS 241

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Portis v. Board of Public Utilities, Lepanto (Ark. 1948)
Letaw v. Smith (Ark. 1954)
Hortonv. City of Paragould (Ark. 1974)
Independent Insurance Consultants, Inc. v. First State Bank (Ark. 1973)
Cheney v. Murphy Corp. (Ark. 1962)
Arkansas State Board of Architects v. Larsen (Ark. 1956)
McWilliams v. Lantz (Ark. 1926)
Fairview Coal Co. v. Arkansas Central Railway Co. (Ark. 1922)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.

App Davis sued the receivers of the St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Company to recover the penalty provided in section 6620 of Kirby’s Digest, for charging a greater compensation for his transportation as a passenger than is allowed and prescribed by the act. The defendant company demurred to the complaint and the court sustained its demurrer. No judgment was rendered dismissing the complaint of the plaintiff and not even a judgment for costs was rendered.

(1) • When the 'court sustained the demurrer the plaintiff had his election to amend his complaint, or, to rest and permit final judgment to be rendered dismissing his complaint and then appeal.

(2-3) It is well settled in this State that no appeal lies where there is no final judgment. The order of the court sustaining the demurrer was not a final judgment but was interlocutory, merely.

It follows that the appeal must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Benton County v. Rutherford, 30 Ark. 665; Radford v. Samstag, 113 Ark. 185, 167 S. W. 491, and cases cited; Harlow v. Mason, 117 Ark. 360.

It is so ordered.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.