{ "id": 1633318, "name": "Andy DOYLE v. Randall WILLIAMS, Judge", "name_abbreviation": "Doyle v. Williams", "decision_date": "1972-01-17", "docket_number": "5-5694", "first_page": "797", "last_page": "800", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "251 Ark. 797" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "475 S.W.2d 170" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "21 S. W. 2d 133", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "year": 1929, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 Ark. 583", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1453412 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/200/0583-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 S. C. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 2088463 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/sc/219/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 S. C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 2093774 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/sc/225/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 S. W. 2d 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10169878 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "485" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/324/0483-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 So. 2d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9858236 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/192/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 F. Supp. 719", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 4285552 ], "year": 1957, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "723" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/155/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 F. Supp. 479", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1485722 ], "year": 1963, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "483" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/232/0479-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 F. Supp. 893", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 1560071 ], "year": 1966, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "897" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/250/0893-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 C. F. R. \u00a7 730.1511", "category": "laws:admin_compilation", "reporter": "C.F.R.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "m" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "401 F. 2d 253", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2135007 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/401/0253-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 361, "char_count": 5501, "ocr_confidence": 0.847, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.0722432192350205e-08, "percentile": 0.31996556555999983 }, "sha256": "4e46f189660eab01e200cb6c7d1d2b5e9122697145625fb322ae7ffadc455c12", "simhash": "1:26051f4841285ddf", "word_count": 935 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:18:57.175988+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Harris, C. J., and Brown, J., dissent." ], "parties": [ "Andy DOYLE v. Randall WILLIAMS, Judge" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe only issue before us relates to the venue of a cause of action which was brought by an agency of the State of Arkansas against the petitioner, Andy Doyle, seeking a declaratory judgment construing a lease between the State and the petitioner.\nThe Arkansas Department of Correction leased to petitioner Doyle approximately 3,300 acres of farm land with an assigned rice allotment of 600 acres. Subsequent to the execution of this lease the United States Department of Agriculture reduced the total rice allotment for all the state penitentiary farm lands. The Department of Correction took the position that petitioner\u2019s rice acreage allotment should be proportionately reduced under their lease agreement. Upon the refusal of the petitioner to agree with this interpretation of the lease and to proportionately reduce his rice acreage, the Department of Correction, through the Attorney General, filed an action seeking a declaratory judgment construing the lease in its favor. The petitioner is a resident of Jackson County and contends that the suit for interpretation of the lease should be brought by the State in the county of his residence pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-201 (Repl. 1962) and not in Jefferson County where the land lies. The respondent court held that the declaratory judgment action involved an interest in land and, therefore, \u00a7 27-601 requires that the action must be brought in the county where the land is situated. Thereupon the petitioner filed in this court a petition for writ of prohibition seeking an order to prevent the Jefferson Circuit Court, the respondent, from proceeding further in this action.\nThe pertinent part of \u00a7 27-601 provides: \u201cActions for the following causes must be brought in the county in which the subject of the action, or some part thereof, is situated, * * * First. For the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein.\u201d\nIn its complaint the plaintiff [Arkansas State Department of Correction] sought a declaratory judgment interpreting the rice acreage under the terms of a lease agreement between it, the landlord, and petitioner, the tenant. No other relief was asked in the complaint. Since this controversy pertains only to the interpretation of a leasehold, we hold that, for venue purposes, it does not involve the recovery of an interest in real property. See Jones v. Brinkman, 200 Ark. 583, 139 S. W. 2d 686 (1940): Edwards v. Bernstein, 21 S. W. 2d 133 (Ky. 1929); 56 Am. Jur., Venue, \u00a7 13.\nIt follows that venue, in the case at bar, is controlled by \u00a7 34-201 which requires that this action be brought by the State in the county where petitioner resides.\nWrit granted.\nHarris, C. J., and Brown, J., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Frank Holt, Justice." }, { "text": "Carleton Harris Chief Justice,\ndissenting. I disagree with the conclusion reached by the majority and am firmly of the opinion that the venue of this action is controlled by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-601 (Repl. 1962) which, inter alia, provides that actions for the recovery of real property, or of an estate or interest therein, must be brought in the county in which the land is located.\nMy disagreement is based on the fact that it has been definitely determined that an acreage allotment is made to the farm and therefore runs with the land. In McClung v. Thompson, 401 F. 2d 253 (1968), a case arising in Arkansas, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit stated:\n\u201cIt is our view that a rice allotment runs with the land, is a part of it, and cannot effectively be transferred by one person to another, nor can it be transferred to other land except by complying with the procedural requirements of the regulations, which was not done in this case. * # * *\nLikewise, the regulations provide that crop allotments are made to the land and not to the individual farmer. Certain states are designated as \u2018producer states\u2019 and other as \u2018farm states.\u2019 Arkansas is classified as a \u2018farm state.\u2019 7 C. F. R. \u00a7 730.1511 (m). This means that \u2018farm rice allotments are determined on the basis of past production of rice on the farm and the rice allotments previously established for the farm in lieu of past production of rice by the producer and the allotments previously established for the producer. # * * *\nFederal and state courts are in accord in holding that acreage allotments under the Agricultural Adjustment Act and the applicable regulations run with the land and that such allotments cannot be affected by bargains between individual farm owners. Hart v. Hassel, 250 F. Supp. 893, 897 (E. D. N. C. 1966); Williamson v. Holland, 232 F. Supp. 479, 483 (E. D. N. C. 1963); Luke v. Review Committee, 155 F. Supp. 719, 723 (W. D. La. 1957); Allen v. Benson, 192 So. 2d 622 (La. App. 1966); Duncan v. Black, 324 S. W. 2d 483, 485 (Mo. App. 1959); Mace v. Berry, 225 S. C. 160, 81 S. E. 2d 276 (1954); Lee v. Berry, 219 S. C. 346, 65 S. E. 2d 257 (1951).\u201d\nSince the allotment is an interest in land, and since the land affected is located in Jefferson County, I agree entirely with the Jefferson County Circuit Court that Jefferson County is the proper county for venue.\nI therefore respectfully dissent.\nI am authorized to state that Brown, J., joins in this dissent.\nMy emphasis.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Carleton Harris Chief Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Highsmith, Harkey ir Walmsley, by: Allyn C. Tatum, for petitioner.", "Ray Thornton, Attorney General; Mike Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen. and John D. Bridgforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Andy DOYLE v. Randall WILLIAMS, Judge\n5-5694\n475 S.W. 2d 170\nOpinion delivered January 17, 1972\nHighsmith, Harkey ir Walmsley, by: Allyn C. Tatum, for petitioner.\nRay Thornton, Attorney General; Mike Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen. and John D. Bridgforth, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent." }, "file_name": "0797-01", "first_page_order": 823, "last_page_order": 826 }