{
  "id": 1913396,
  "name": "Holmes v. Morgan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holmes v. Morgan",
  "decision_date": "1889-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "99",
  "last_page": "101",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ark. 99"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "12 Ark., 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727680
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/12/0060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Atl. Rep., 910",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "A.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark., 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark., 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881132
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0578-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 225,
    "char_count": 3368,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.719,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.7686186692203125e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8960178759456633
    },
    "sha256": "92b01313e033b73f29218f1e03219f25843d43d334c4172c219b19b5f9a4d01a",
    "simhash": "1:8ae7cdac48b8664c",
    "word_count": 591
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:40.922971+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Holmes v. Morgan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe judgment of the County Court was not an allowance against Desha County within the meaning of Section 51, Article 7, of the Constitution.\nWe are not called to decide whether B. F. Morgan might or might not have become a party to the proceeding in the County Court. It is sufficient to say that he made no effort to avail himself of the right, if it existed.\nNot being a party to the proceeding, he could not appeal. Austin v. Crawford Co., 30 Ark., 578.\nReverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. S. McCain, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Holmes v. Morgan.\n1. Liquors: Appeal from order prohibiting sale of.\nAn order of the County Court prohibiting the sale of liquors under the three-mile law, is not an allowance against the county within the meaning of Sec. 51, Art. 7 of the Constitution, which provides that in all cases of allowance against a county, an appeal shall lie to the Circuit Court \u201cat the instance * * * * of any citizen or resident and tax-payer \u201d of the county.\n2. Same: Same.\nAn appeal from an order of the County Court, prohibiting the sale of liquors under the three-mile law, cannot be taken by one who did not become, or make any effort to become, a party to the proceeding in which the order was made.\nAPPEAL from Desha Circuit Court.\nJohn A. Williams, Judge.\nThe appellants filed their petition in the Desha County Court, making the statutory allegation as to age and place of residence, and praying for an order prohibiting the sale of liquor within three miles of Bethlehem Church, in said county.\nThe petition was filed January 3, 1887, and on the same day an order was made, in accordance with the prayer of the-petition. Four months afterwards, to-wit.: on April 30th,. 1887, the appellee\u2019s intestate, B. F. Morgan, as a \u201c citizen and taxpayer \u201d filed with the Clerk, in vacation, an affidavit for an appeal from this order, and the appeal was granted.\nAt the next July term of the Circuit Court, the petition came on for hearing \u201c in that court, and the Circuit Court found from the evidence that the petition did not contain a majority of the adult inhabitants, and therefore dismissed. the petition, adjudged the cost against the petitioner and. awarded execution.\u201d\nSec. 51, Art. 7 of the Constitution, is as follows:\nThat in all cases of allowances made for or against counties, cities or towns, an appeal shall lie to the Circuit Court of the county, at the instance of the party aggrieved, or on the intervention of any citizen or resident and tax-payer of such county, city or town, on the same terms and conditions on which appeals may be granted to the Circuit Court in other-cases ; and the matter pertaining to any such allowance shall, be tried in the Circuit Court de novo. In case an appeal betaken by any citizen, he shall give a bond, payable to the-proper county, conditioned to prosecute the appeal and save the county from costs on account of the same being taken.\nW. S. McCain, for appellants.\nMorgan never made himself party to the proceedings. He was a stranger and could not appeal. 30 Ark., 338 ; id., \u202111. The judgment was not an allowance against the county. Const., Art. 7, sec. 31. The Circuit Court had therefore no-jurisdiction on appeal, and its judgment for costs was void.. 6 Atl. Rep., 910 ; Mansf. Dig., sec. 10\u20212.\nNo judgment for costs can be rendered in an ex parte proceeding. Bouvier, \u201cCosts \u201d; 12 Ark., 60."
  },
  "file_name": "0099-01",
  "first_page_order": 127,
  "last_page_order": 129
}