{
  "id": 1660110,
  "name": "Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Co.",
  "decision_date": "1952-06-30",
  "docket_number": "4-9844",
  "first_page": "814",
  "last_page": "816",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 Ark. 814"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "250 S.W.2d 119"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "201 Ark. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719404
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/201/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S. W. 878",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ark. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1314395
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/99/0496-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S. W. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721061
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0352-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 2839,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1380626129070269e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5777865813798411
    },
    "sha256": "697ca64e29ebd6bb89913b75b12f84ebe0ccb42fe98237ca010b55acd104415d",
    "simhash": "1:a1053efaeff6957a",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:18:21.188385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Eose Smith, J.\nThis is a controversy between rivals who seek to lease, for farming purposes, certain sixteenth section school lands, title to which is still in\u2019 the State. In 1951 the directors of Etowah School District offered the property for lease to the highest bidder. The appellant David Scrivner and the appellee Portis Mercantile Company submitted the only two bids. The directors accepted the Portis bid, but when the company\u2019s subtenants went to take possession of the property they found that Scrivner had already put tenants of his own on the land.\nThis suit was then filed by Scrivner and others, as taxpayers, against Portis, its subtenants, and the directors of Etowah and other interested school districts. The theory of the complaint is that there is no statutory authority for the leasing of sixteenth section school lands ; the prayer is that the defendants be enjoined from exercising control over the property.\nThe defendants by answer, and the State by intervention, asserted prior peaceable possession on the part of the districts. By cross-complaint it was asked that Scrivner be restrained from farming the lands. Scrivner demurred to the cross-complaint and also moved to transfer the cause to the circuit court. This appeal is from an interlocutory order which (a) overruled Scrivner\u215b demurrer, (b) denied the motion to transfer, and (c) temporarily enjoined Scrivner from occupying the land during the pendency of the action.\nAs to points (a) and (b) the appeal is premature, for there has not yet been a final decree. An order granting or refusing a transfer to law is not appealable, Womack v. Connor, 74 Ark. 352, 85 S. W. 783, nor does an appeal lie from an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer, without further action by the trial court. Atkins v. Graham, 99 Ark. 496, 138 S. W. 878. These matters may be considered by us only after a final decree has been entered below.\nAs to (c), an appeal may be taken from the issuance of a temporary injunction. Ark. Stats. 1947, \u00a7 27-2102. But the granting of the order is a matter that lies within the chancellor\u2019s discretion. Riggs v. Hill, 201 Ark. 206, 144 S. W. 2d 26. By his pleadings Scrivner concedes that the State owns the land and that he is in effect a trespasser. The prosecuting attorney, pursuant to his authority to represent the State in civil actions (\u00a7\u00a7 24-101 and 24-103), asks that the trespass be enjoined pendente lite. The proof taken at the preliminary hearing sustains the view that possession is wrongful. There was no abuse of discretion in the issuance of the injunction.\nThe injunctive order is affirmed; in other respects the appeal is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Eose Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ed B. Cook, for appellant.",
      "John S. Mosby and James E. Hyatt, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Scrivner v. Portis Mercantile Company.\n4-9844\n250 S. W. 2d 119\nOpinion delivered June 30, 1952.\nEd B. Cook, for appellant.\nJohn S. Mosby and James E. Hyatt, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0814-01",
  "first_page_order": 838,
  "last_page_order": 840
}