{ "id": 1571562, "name": "McMahan v. Ruble", "name_abbreviation": "McMahan v. Ruble", "decision_date": "1918-07-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "83", "last_page": "85", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "135 Ark. 83" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "85 Ark. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1523323 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/85/0304-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ark. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1513904 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/90/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ark. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1911702 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/53/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 Ill. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2843053 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/97/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Wis. 667", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 11285919 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wis/27/0667-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Maine 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Cal. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2257420 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/8/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Met. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Met.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "87 Ark. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1519094 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/87/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 Ark. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717613 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/130/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 Ark. 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1550219 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/127/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 Ark. 383", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1581904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/128/0383-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 Ark. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1352004 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/103/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ark. 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1341186 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/109/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 Ark. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "87" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 Ark. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1573276 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/134/0121-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ark. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1513904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/90/0219-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 355, "char_count": 5757, "ocr_confidence": 0.508, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.616225894615612e-07, "percentile": 0.8208897507151961 }, "sha256": "636b03d86e60a0fa1380ba12abcf7b4e78a8c21159ee29ccef8fb715205378ea", "simhash": "1:46572fc1d618b2d0", "word_count": 1023 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:53:01.204034+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "McMahan v. Ruble." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "SMITH, J.\nThe county court of Boone County made an order establishing a road through the lands of appellant. He filed a remonstrance in the county court to the opening of the road on the ground that it would not be of .sufficient importance to warrant the county in making the necessary expenditure of money to build and maintain the road. An .appeal was prosecuted to the circuit court from the order opening the road and assessing the damages, and there the petitioners for the road moved the court to dismiss the appeal insofar as it applied to the order of the county court opening the road. This motion was sustained, and this appeal has been prosecuted to review that .order. The proceeding in this case was had under .section 1 of Act 422 of the Public Acts of 1911, page 365.\nIt is first insisted that the appeal was properly dismissed because appellant was not a party .aggrieved within the meaning of the law. But that contention can not be sustained. Appellant made himself a party to the record in the county court and he was, therefore, entitled to appeal from an adverse decision. Sloan v. Lawrence County, 134 Ark. 121.\nAs a citizen and taxpayer he had the right to be made a party to the proceeding in the county court. Lee County v. Robertson, 66 Ark. 83, 87; Casey v. Independence County, 109 Ark. 11, 17; Nemier v. Bramlett, 103 Ark. 209; School Dist. No. 44 v. Rural Special School Dist. No. 10, 128 Ark. 383; Ward v. Wilson, 127 Ark. 266; Rust v. Kocourek, 130 Ark. 39.\nMoreover, he had the special interest in this litigation that the land taken would revert to him if the order of the county court establishing the road was set aside. The decision of this court in the case of Brown v. Frenken, 87 Ark. 160, turned upon the right of the appellant to appeal, and in defining party aggrieved the court there said:\n\u201c \u2018A party aggrieved is one whose pecuniary interest is directly affected by the decree or one whose right of property may be established or divested by the decree. \u2019 Wiggins v. Sweet, 6 Met. 197. The party aggrieved is 'the person who would have had the property if the judgment alleged to be erroneous had not been rendered. Adams v. Woods, 8 Cal. 306; Veazie Bank v. Young, 53 Maine 560; Betts v. Shotton, 27 Wis. 667; Case of Koch\u2019s Estate, 4 Rawle (Pa.) 267; Jenkins v. International Bank, 97 Ill. 568.\u201d\nIt is insisted, however, that the section under which this proceeding wqs had provides only for an appeal from the order of the court assessing the damages and makes no provision for an appeal from the order of the court establishing the road. Such appears to be the fact. But appellant is not thus deprived of his right of appeal. A .similar contention was made in the case of Huddleston v. Coffman, 90 Ark. 219. That was an appeal from an order of the county court fixing the fee of an attorney who had represented petitioners in the establishment of a drainage district. It was said that section 1428 of Kirby\u2019s Digest, which was a part of the drainage act under which that proceeding was had, specifically enumerated the matters from which an appeal could be taken from the county court to the circuit court, and omitted to name, among the matters from which an appeal might be prosecuted, the allowance of attorney\u2019s fees. But, in disposing of that question, the court said that section 14, article 7, of the Constitution provides that circuit courts shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over county courts and other designated courts and that a right of appeal from the order of the county court in question existed and \u201cthat right not having been conferred in the matter of allowing attorney\u2019s fees by the Drainage Act, it could be exercised under the general acts governing appeals from county courts.\u201d So the right of appeal existed here and should have been permitted under section 1487 of Kirby\u2019s Digest.\nIt is pointed out, however, that even though the right of appeal did exist under this section of the statute the requirements of that statute were not complied with, in that no affidavit for appeal was made. This point appears to be well taken, and the .appeal from the county court was, therefore, properly dismissed, and the judgment of the circuit court to that effect will accordingly be affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "SMITH, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "J. M. Shinn, for appellants; Oscar W. Hudgins, of counsel.", "Shouse & Rowland and Guy L. Trimble, fox appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "McMahan v. Ruble.\nOpinion delivered July 1, 1918.\n1. Roads \u2014 order establishing \u2014 rights of citizen and taxpayer.\u2014 Where the county court made an order establishing a road through certain lands, a citizen and taxpayer owning lands taken by the road may make himself a party to the proceedings and appeal from the orders of the court.\n2. Appeal and error \u2014 necessity for affidavit \u2014 roads.\u2014While a taxpayer, who has become a party to the proceedings laying out a road, may appeal from an order of the county court, under section 1, Act 422, Public Acts of 1911, page 365, such appeal will be dismissed where no affidavit for appeal was made and filed.\nAppeal from Boone Circuit Court; Jno. I. Worthington, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJ. M. Shinn, for appellants; Oscar W. Hudgins, of counsel.\n1. The court erred in dismissing the petition and refusing an appeal. Art 7, \u00a7 33, Const.; lb. Art. 7, \u00a7 114; Kirby\u2019s Dig. $ \u00a7 1487, 3006, 1492; 53 Ark. 417; K. & C. Dig. \u00a7 8988.\n2. Although the Act (No. 422, Acts 1911), makes a provision for an appeal the right exists under the constitution and general statutes. 90 Ark. 219; 95 Id. 385; 117 Id. 4. Appellant was a party to the record and aggrieved.\nShouse & Rowland and Guy L. Trimble, fox appellee.\nThe appeal was properly dismissed. Appellant was not a party and the appeal was not properly taken as the statute was not complied with. 53 Art. 417; K. & C. Dig. \u00a7 1303; 85 Ark. 304; 2 Cyc. 633; Acts 1911, K. & C. Dig. \u00a7 8988; Kirby\u2019s Digest, $ \u00a7 1487, 3006." }, "file_name": "0083-01", "first_page_order": 107, "last_page_order": 109 }