{
  "id": 1316078,
  "name": "Harrod v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harrod v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "596",
  "last_page": "597",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 Ark. 596"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 2393,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.636,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.324376661535056e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6274636088822166
    },
    "sha256": "8d0070ae146730817ba02f50351cd85ee8ebd4b4efb6e2fdbd176d8cef7ede4e",
    "simhash": "1:d58723b4c30deefb",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:48:44.239381+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Harrod v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nLetters of administration on -the estate of O. H. McPherson, deceased, were issued by the probate court of Lonoke County to appellant, J. R. Harrod, who instituted an action in the circuit court of that county against the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company to recover damages alleged to have been sustained iby the estate and next of kin of said decedent on account of the negligent acts of the employees of said railway company.\nOn August 1, 1910, Mrs. Annie McPherson, widow of said deceased, O. H. McPherson, filed her interplea in said action, alleging that she and her child were the only ones to be benefited in the event of a recovery of damages; that appellant had procured his letters of administration through false representations that he was a creditor, and that he should not be allowed to prosecute said suit as administrator. She prayed that she be permitted to manage the case, so far as it affected herself and child, and that the case be not tried until she had had her rights to administer on said estate adjudged.\nThe court made the following order, from which appeal has been prosecuted:\n\u201cIt is, therefore, ordered and adjudged that the interplea be sustained, and that this case be not tried until she can have her rights to administer on the estate adjudged in the court to which she may appeal in her application for -letters of administration, and that she now have control and management of this action for the death of her husband, Oscar McPherson.\u201d\nThe order -in question 'did not terminate the action nor finally adjudicate appellant\u2019s rights to prosecute the same. The effect of the order was merely to continue the case until the widow could -have an opportunity to procure the removal of appellant as administrator and to obtain for herself letters of administration on the estate of said decedent. It was not a final order from which an appeal could be prosecuted.\nThe appeal is therefore dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Trimble, Robinson & Trimble, for appellant.",
      "G. W. Hendricks, for appellee McPherson."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Harrod v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company.\nOpinion delivered April 17, 1911.\nAppeal and error \u2014 final order. \u2014 An order continuing a case until the. plaintiffs\u2019 right to prosecute it can be determined in the probate court is not final or appealable.\nAppeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; Eugene Lankford, Judge; appeal\ndismissed.\nTrimble, Robinson & Trimble, for appellant.\nG. W. Hendricks, for appellee McPherson."
  },
  "file_name": "0596-01",
  "first_page_order": 616,
  "last_page_order": 617
}