{
  "id": 1524474,
  "name": "Randolph v. Abbott",
  "name_abbreviation": "Randolph v. Abbott",
  "decision_date": "1907-11-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "341",
  "last_page": "342",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 341"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "13 Ark. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728159
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/13/0355-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728019
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/15/0043-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 177,
    "char_count": 2637,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.709,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32694338550239804
    },
    "sha256": "9c2a52c013b0cbf48fed1f3ffd0b683dbbfeff3680073262a59b2cb41c1b7430",
    "simhash": "1:e019d9af876fb2d9",
    "word_count": 446
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Randolph v. Abbott."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BattlL, J.\nH. V. Abbott petitioned to the Franklin County Court for a private road through the lands owned by R. H. Randolph. Upon application of Abbott the county court directed the issue of a writ of injunction enjoining Randolph from interfering with Abbott in the use of his lands as a road. Randolph moved to dissolve the injunction, which was denied. From this order Randolph appealed to the Franklin Circuit Court, by which the order granting the injunction was affirmed. Randolph seeks to set aside the judgment of affirmance in this court by writ of certiorari.\nInjunctions are matters of chancery cognizance. County courts have no power to grant them. It is true that the Constitution of this State provides that \u201cin the absence of the circuit judge from the county the county judge shall have power to issue orders for injunctions and other provisional writs in their counties, returnable to the court having jurisdiction, provided that either party may have such order reviewed by any superior judge in vacation in such manner as shall be provided by law.\u201d Art. 7, \u00a7 37, .Const. 1874. In no cases is the county court granted such power, and the county judge has such power only in cases and to the extent authorized by the Constitution, which is in actions pending in other courts. The county court having no jurisdiction, the circuit court acquir\u00e9\u00e1 none by appeal.\nThe judgment of affirmance of the circuit court is quashed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BattlL, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sam R. Chew, for petitioner.",
      "W. W. Cotton, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Randolph v. Abbott.\nOpinion delivered November 11, 1907.\nInjunction \u2014 authority or county judge to issue. \u2014 Constitution 1874, art. 7> ,\u00a7 37\u00bb providing that \u201cin the absence of the circuit judge from the county the county judge shall have power to issue orders for injunctions and other provisional writs in their counties,\u201d contemplates that a county judge may issue such writs only where an action is pending in other courts.\nCertiorari to Franklin Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge;\njudgment quashed.\nSam R. Chew, for petitioner.\n1. The county court was without jurisdiction to issue an injunction.\n2. Respondent could only obtain a private road through the property in the manner laid down by the statute, and in strict compliance therewith. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3010; 15 Ark. 43 J 13 Ark. 355.\nW. W. Cotton, for respondent.\nThe right to a- restraining order or injunction is a separate and distinct right, and the grounds therefor named in the statute. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 3965. And when, as in this case, such grounds are admitted, respondent ought not to be required to await the slow procedure of the court in granting an order for the road before seeking relief under the injunction statute."
  },
  "file_name": "0341-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 364
}