Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

26 Ark. 659

Halliburton v. Sumner

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 15, 1871

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1871-06-15

<p>Appeals — Motion to dismiss, etc. — Where the record shows the appeal was regularly taken, this is what gives this court jurisdiction to examine the case upon its merits, and a motion to peremptorily [dismiss for want of jurisdiction of the subject-matter in the court below, will not be entertained, but will be considered on examination of the merits of the case.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1871-06-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently June 1941

3 state decisions

1018711880189019001910192019301940decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Bennett, J.

¶1This cause is now before us on a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in the court below.

¶2It appears by the transcript of the record, that William H. Halliburton and William A. Sample, brought an action of unlawful detainer against Jacob B. Sumner, in the circuit court of Arkansas county.

¶3The issue joined in the cause below was submitted to a jury, who found for the defendant; the circuit court rendered judgment of possession in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiffs for costs and they appealed.

¶4The appellee comes into this court and moves to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction in the court below. This xis what gives this court the jurisdiction to examine the case upon its merits. The question of the jurisdiction of the court below, as to the original matter in controversy, would be one that would properly come before us in the examination of the cause; if upon such an examination it was found that the court rendering the judgment had no jurisdiction, the proceedings would be declared null and void. But a motion to peremptorily dismiss the case from the docket of this court because the court below had no jurisdiction, cannot be entertained.

¶5The appeal, being regular, the case must be heard on its merits. Motion to dismiss overruled.

/26/ark/659 · .json · Public domain