{ "id": 1600689, "name": "Crawford RYALL et al v. WATERWORKS IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 3 et al", "name_abbreviation": "Ryall v. Waterworks Improvement Dist. No. 3", "decision_date": "1969-12-01", "docket_number": "5-5060", "first_page": "739", "last_page": "742", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "247 Ark. 739" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "447 S.W.2d 341" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "246 Ark. 247", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1604057 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/246/0247-01" ] }, { "cite": "210 Ark. 1073", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8726027 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/210/1073-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S. W. 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1912, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 40", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1347109 ], "year": 1912, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/105/0040-01" ] }, { "cite": "231 Ark. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1697100 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/231/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S. W. 955", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "112 Ark. 572", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1538847 ], "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/112/0572-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1600708 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/247/0431-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 307, "char_count": 4746, "ocr_confidence": 0.611, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0092017152712958e-07, "percentile": 0.541748186863404 }, "sha256": "7a6c80fc0af3d5bf12b5177dc0dc497451c5bd9ed2ac54b6e4295cddfc9594d9", "simhash": "1:52e4c39c4028f434", "word_count": 763 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:32:29.213565+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Crawford RYALL et al v. WATERWORKS IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 3 et al" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThis appeal comes from the chancellor\u2019s order which the appellants assert dismissed their petition for a permanent injunction against appellee Waterworks Improvement District No. 3.\nThe appellants filed a complaint seeking to enjoin the improvement district and its commissioners from proceeding with the construction and installation of a sewage treatment plant near the town of Star City. Appellants sought a temporary injunction and .asked that upon a final hearing a permanent injunction be issued together with an award for damages in the sum of $10,-000 against the district and its commissioners individually. After a hearing the chancellor refused to grant appellants\u2019 requested temporary injunction and an appeal was taken from that decision. We affirmed on the basis that no facts were presented which established that the incompleted plant constituted or would constitute a nuisance and the fear that the sewage plant might adversely affect the value of appellants\u2019 lands was not a sufficient ground for obtaining a temporary injunction. Ryall et al v. Waterworks Improvement Dist. No. 3 et al, 247 Ark. 431, 445 S. W. 2d 883. There we said:\n\u201cAlso, the court commented that the hearing was only for purposes of determining whether a temporary injunction should be granted, and that, if the proof were sufficiently developed to warrant injunctive relief, a permanent injunction could be granted after the final hearing.\u201d\nPending the appeal from the denial of the temporary injunction, the improvement district filed two motions. One motion alleged that the district\u2019s work or construction of the sewage plant was not subject to an injunction, citing Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 20-314 (Repl. 1968), and, therefore, appellants\u2019 complaint should be dismissed and \u201cthat if plaintiffs [.appellants] have any damages, which is specifically denied, they must bring their action in a court of law * * In the other motion the commissioners, relying upon Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 20-313, asserted they had no individual liability for actions in good faith as commissioners. Appellants filed a response to each motion. Subsequent to a hearing, the chancellor rendered a separate order dismissing appellants \u2019 complaint insofar as it seeks a judgment against the commissioners individually. In another order the court transferred the action for damages against the appellee district to circuit court. From the latter order comes this appeal.\nIn their original brief appellants assert only one point for reversal: \u201cThe Court erred in dismissing plaintiffs\u2019 [appellants] prayer for injunctive relief on the basis of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 20-314 (Repl. 1968).\u201d Appellants contend that \u201cthe injunctive relief sought by plaintiffs-appellants was in effect dismissed.\u201d (Emphasis added) We do not construe the order of the chancellor as a dismissal of appellants \u2019 request for a permanent injunction. The order entered by the chancellor, in pertinent part, reads:\n\u201cThat the complaint seeks money damages in addition to injunctive relief, and since money damages is sought, by the plaintiffs [appellants] that the motion should he treated as a motion to transfer to the court of law in order that a determination may be made on the question of damages. \u00b6 It is therefore considered, ordered, adjudged and decreed that so much of the hereinabove suit as pertains to Waterworks Improvement District Number 3, which seeks money damages, is hereby transferred to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, Arkansas.\u201d (Emphasis added)\nThe plain and unambiguous wording of the order is that the chancellor only granted the district\u2019s motion to dismiss insofar as it relates to the forum for appellants\u2019 action for money damages. We are of the view that appellants\u2019 request for a permanent injunction is still pending before the chancellor and appellants\u2019 present appeal is premature.\nFurther, appellants submit that the chancellor erred in transferring the issue of damages to circuit court, citing Evans v. Pettus, 112 Ark. 572, 166 S. W. 955 (1914) and St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. City of Hughes, 231 Ark. 530, 331 S. W. 2d 106 (1960). However, this argument was first presented in appellants\u2019 reply brief and, therefore, we do not reach it. We do not consider an asserted error first proposed in the reply brief because, in that event, the appellee has no opportunity to reply. Groves v. Keene, 105 Ark. 40, 150 S. W. 575 (1912); O\u2019Dell v. Young, 210 Ark. 1073, 199 S. W. 2d 971 (1947); Nelson et al v. Busby et al; 246 Ark. 247, 437 S. W. 2d 799 (1969).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Brockman & Brockman, for appellants.", "Odell G. Garter, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Crawford RYALL et al v. WATERWORKS IMPROVEMENT DIST. NO. 3 et al\n5-5060\n447 S. W. 2d 341\nOpinion delivered December 1, 1969\nBrockman & Brockman, for appellants.\nOdell G. Garter, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0739-01", "first_page_order": 761, "last_page_order": 764 }