{
  "id": 1524455,
  "name": "Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal Land & Townsite Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal Land & Townsite Co.",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "494",
  "last_page": "495",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 494"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "109 U. S. 150",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        8193
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/109/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Wall. 273",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.",
      "case_ids": [
        3436424
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/77/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 Ark. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "70"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1870960
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/37/0318-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 2937,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.708,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.860306827334906e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7247607872119185
    },
    "sha256": "11edde559ab78b98b9e8288cc7cf0fbf16ea702c4d96f468bc9626a6aa42e1e6",
    "simhash": "1:60157085abfe646a",
    "word_count": 503
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal Land & Townsite Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Prr Curiam.\nThe material part of the judgment in this case is as follows: \u201cThat the Union Sawmill Company is a corporation engaged in the manufacture of lumber, and for more than one year prior to the institution of this suit it had unlawfully and without right operated its log train across the said land in controversy, the property of the plaintiff, for the purpose of conveying logs to their saw mill; that said trespass has contifiued for some length of time, and will continue unless prevented by order of this court; and that the Union Sawmill Company should be perpetually restrained from passing over or interfering with said land in anyway............That the defendant, the Union Sawmill Company, its agents, employees- and servants, are perpetually enjoined from further entering upon said land for any purpose whatever, except that within ninety days the said defendants, the Union Sawmill Company, can use said lands for the purpose of taking and removing its steel therefrom.\u201d\nThe Sawmill Company appealed to this court and' filed a supersedeas bond in the statutory form, and the clerk issued a supersedeas in usual form.\nAppellee now 'files a motion to quash the supersedeas, in so far as it stays so much of the judgment as enjoins the Sawmill Company from operating the log road as above set forth.\nIt is well settled that the execution of a supersedeas bond does not stay so much of a decree as grants or dissolves an injunction. 2 Cyc. 913-14 and notes; Payne v. McCabe, 37 Ark. 318. From its very nature an injunction is not such a judgment as can be stayed by a supersedeas bond. It has been the practice of this court to issue injunctions pendente lite or writs of supersedeas pending litigation, where the justice of the case required the status quo to be preserved.\nThe appellee\u2019s rights are fully protected by the supersedeas bond which has been filed; and the status quo should be preserved pending the appeal, and the bond can not do that. It is, therefore, ordered that the clerk issue a stay of proceedings under the judgment appealed from until the hearing of this case upon the merits, or until the further orders of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Prr Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smead & Powell, and Campbell & Stevenson, for petitioner.",
      "Bunn & Patterson, for respondents."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Union Sawmill Co. v. Felsenthal Land & Townsite Co.\nOpinion delivered December 9, 1907.\n\u25a0Appear \u2014 decree granting injunction \u2014 supersedeas.\u2014As the execution of a supersedeas bond does not stay so much of a decree as grants an injunction, where the justice of the case requires that the status quo be preserved, this court will order a stay of proceedings until the hearing of the cause on appeal.\nSmead & Powell, and Campbell & Stevenson, for petitioner.\nAppeal from Union Chancery Court; B. 0. Mahoney, Chancellor.\nThe supersedeas issued by the clerk should be quashed. A decree for a perpetual injunction can not 'be superseded. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 1216, 1222, 1218; 73 Ark. 67, 70; 77 Id. 580; 2 Cyc. 913-14; 10 Wall. 273; 109 U. S. 150.\nBunn & Patterson, for respondents."
  },
  "file_name": "0494-01",
  "first_page_order": 516,
  "last_page_order": 517
}