{
  "id": 1517107,
  "name": "Sumpter v. Buchanan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sumpter v. Buchanan",
  "decision_date": "1908-11-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "118",
  "last_page": "120",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "88 Ark. 118"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "85 Ark. 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1523323
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/85/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ark. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1903668
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/60/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719515
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0048-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 4523,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.653,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0997720922370316e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5679242303315754
    },
    "sha256": "ea61a4d01cdfdd6340c044a39f5c6aa22888b48f0cef34b7633f5277477db752",
    "simhash": "1:86d3edecc964865a",
    "word_count": 806
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:49.818757+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sumpter v. Buchanan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hart, J.\n(after stating the facts). Sec. 1493 of Kirby\u2019s Digest provides that when appeals are prosecuted -in the circuit or Supreme Court, the judge of the county court shall defend the same. This court has held that this includes the right to take an appeal. Ex parte Morton, 69 Ark. 48; Ouachita County v. Rolland, 60 Ark. 516. These were cases where the county judge appealed from an adverse judgment. Here the judgment of the circuit court was in favor of the county, and the question \u2018is presented, can the county judge in such case take an appeal?\nIn discussing the statute above, ref erred to, in the Ouachita County case, the court said:. \u201cIt is obvious that the authority conferred by them (referring to the words \u2018shall defend the same\u2019) was given for the purpose of protecting the interest of the county, which may be involved. It would be against the liberal policy of the law to so limit it as to deny him the right-to take an appeal when the county may be aggrieved by the judgment of a circuit court. As a general rule, all parties aggrieved are allowed to take appeals from all judgments of the circuit and inferior courts. There can be no good, reason why counties should be denied the same right, except as to judgments of the county courts.\u201d Thus it will be seen that the statute primarily imposes upon the county judge the duty of defending its suits on appeal, and, as an aid to him in the discharge of that duty, he may take an appeal from a judgment of a circuit court when he deems it necessary for the purpose of protecting the interest of the county. But in defending suits in which the county is interested he acts only as agent or representative of the county, and, unless the decision is adverse to the county, there is no occasion for the county judge to prosecute an appeal. Flis only duty is to make a defense for the county, and if the judgment of the circuit court is in its favor, he has discharged the duty imposed upon him, and his authority to act ceases.\nThe general rule is that a party who succeeds has no right to an appeal. Elliot on Appellate Procedure, \u00a7 147. This rule was applied by this court in the case of Phillips v. Goe, 85 Ark. 304, where the parties prosecuting the appeal had been granted the relief which they originally asked for.\nThis opinion is not to be taken as in any manner determining whatever rights, if any, Murphy may have by appeal or otherwise, and merely goes to the right of the county judge to prosecute an appeal from a judgment in favor of the county.\nOrdered that the appeal be dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hart, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. Floyd Huff and Murphy, Coleman & Lewis, for appellant.",
      "Wood & Henderson, for app\u00e9llee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sumpter v. Buchanan.\nOpinion delivered November 16, 1908.\nCounty \u2014 disallowance oe claim against \u2014 eight oe county judge .to appeal. \u2014 A county judge is not authorized to appeal from a judgment of the circuit court disallowing a claim against the county.\nAppeal from Garland Circuit Court; W. H. Evans, Judge;\nappeal dismissed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe subject-matter of this action is an allowance made by the county court of Garland County to M. J. Murphy for work and materials alleged to have been done and furnished by him for the plumbing and heating of the county jail.\nAppellee, as a citizen and taxpayer of Garland County, duly prosecuted an appeal from the order of allowance to the circuit court.\nAfter hearing the evidence, the circuit court rendered the following judgment:\n\u201cNow on this day, this cause having heretofore been submitted to the court, and the court, being well and sufficiently advised, finds, as a matter of fact, that the contract, as alleged to have been made by the county court with M. J. Murphy, in the sum of $2,125 f\u00b0r plumbing and heating the county jail of Garland County, was void for the reason that the same was not made during term of the county court, and for the further reason that the contract was not advertised and publicly let; also because no previous appropriation had been made for making such improvement. In view of the above findings the court does not feel called upon to pass on the- reasonableness or unreasonableness of the amount of the allowance, and therefore finds that the judgment of the county court in allowing the claim of M. J. Murphy for $2,125 was without authority of law. and therefore void.\u201d\nO. H. S'umpter, as judge of the county court, filed his motion for a new trial, and, upon the same being overruled, has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.\nAppellee moves to dismiss his appeal.\nC. Floyd Huff and Murphy, Coleman & Lewis, for appellant.\nWood & Henderson, for app\u00e9llee."
  },
  "file_name": "0118-01",
  "first_page_order": 138,
  "last_page_order": 140
}