{
  "id": 1884325,
  "name": "Loren D. BUTTOLPH TRUST, Richard D. Buttolph, Trustee v. Larry JARNAGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Buttolph Trust v. Jarnagan",
  "decision_date": "1990-05-29",
  "docket_number": "89-285",
  "first_page": "393",
  "last_page": "395",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "302 Ark. 393"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "789 S.W.2d 466"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 16",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878645
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0016-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21-9-301",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616723
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0740-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-111-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-234-110",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ark. 638",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1678858
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/261/0638-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895796
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-115-104",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 267,
    "char_count": 3643,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.885,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1989986621613888e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5931963600966698
    },
    "sha256": "d89debd0400e1ef084cf2a634517c2b6e8dc7f672305e08b94f61e39c4d4a20d",
    "simhash": "1:9b4d505f564ed174",
    "word_count": 593
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:34:09.444418+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Loren D. BUTTOLPH TRUST, Richard D. Buttolph, Trustee v. Larry JARNAGAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dale Price, Justice.\nThe appellant trust owns property situated outside the city limits of Winslow, Arkansas. The appellee is the mayor of Winslow. The question we must answer in this case is whether the trial court was correct in denying the appellant\u2019s petition seeking a writ of mandamus and damages against the appellee.\nThe trust obtained the property at a foreclosure sale. Even though the property was located outside the Winslow city limits, the city had extended its water mains to the property and had provided water service to the former owners. However, when the appellant requested water service, the city replied that service would not be resumed until the prior owners\u2019 delinquent water bill was paid.\nThe trust refused to make the payments and brought this action seeking a writ of mandamus and damages. The petition alleged that requiring payment of a previous owner\u2019s delinquent bill as a prerequisite to obtaining water service violated various state constitutional provisions. The trust moved to have the case heard within seven days, as provided by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-115-104 (1987).\nThe appellee answered and filed a motion to dismiss. The trial court granted the motion, dismissing both the mandamus and the claim for damages. We affirm the result reached by the trial court.\nThe court held that it was within the appellee\u2019s discretion to refuse to supply water to a non-resident customer. Recognizing that mandamus does not lie to control a discretionary act, the court dismissed the mandamus petition. The dismissal of the petition was correct but for a different reason. Mandamus may not be used to establish a legal right. Springdale Bd. of Education v. Bowman, 294 Ark. 66, 740 S.W.2d 909 (1987); Bunting v. Bedford, 261 Ark. 638, 550 S.W.2d 439 (1977). In its petition, the appellant sought to establish its right to receive water service unencumbered by the previous tenants\u2019 unpaid bill. It is argued that, because the city operates the waterworks in a governmental capacity, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-234-110(a) (1987), it cannot arbitrarily refuse to supply water service once its mains have been extended. We need not address this argument because mandamus simply is not the proper remedy in this case; therefore, the petition was properly dismissed. The appellant should have sought relief under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-111-103 (1987) by filing a petition for declaratory relief.\nThe trial court was also correct in dismissing the appellant\u2019s damages claim. Once again, we employ a different line of reasoning than the trial judge but reach the same result.\nThe trial judge dismissed the damages claim on the ground that it had been improperly joined with the mandamus action. See Rastle v. Marion County Rural Sch. Dist. No. 1,260 Ark. 740, 543 S.W.2d 923 (1976). This line of reasoning is incorrect. The trial court should have severed the damages claim from the mandamus action. ARCP Rule 18(b). The appellant could then have proceeded on the damage portion of his petition. However, we find the trial court\u2019s dismissal was ultimately correct. The appellant sought damages against the appellee for actions taken in the appellee\u2019s capacity as mayor/waterworks manager. The appellee is immune from liability under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21-9-301 (1987).\nWe affirm since the correct result was reached. See Ratliff v. Moss, 284 Ark. 16, 678 S.W.2d 369 (1984).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dale Price, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thurman Ragar, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Kincaid, Horne, Trumbo & Hogue, by: Hugh R. Kincaid, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Loren D. BUTTOLPH TRUST, Richard D. Buttolph, Trustee v. Larry JARNAGAN\n89-285\n789 S.W.2d 466\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1990\nThurman Ragar, Jr., for appellant.\nKincaid, Horne, Trumbo & Hogue, by: Hugh R. Kincaid, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0393-01",
  "first_page_order": 419,
  "last_page_order": 421
}