¶1Our most recent opinion involving the present parties is Gipson v. Brown, 295 Ark. 371, 749 S.W.2d 297 (1988). Neither party filed a petition for rehearing. The mandate was issued on May 27, 1988.
¶2The respondents have instituted contempt proceedings in chancery court and argue that because we dismissed the petitioners’ appeal in Gipson, the lower court’s judgment remained in effect. The petitioners filed the pending petition for writ of prohibition and rely upon discussion in Gipson which made clear that the underlying dispute between the parties was a church matter not proper for resolution by the courts. We granted a temporary stay pending further review.
¶3 The temporary stay is now made permanent. We direct the attention of the lower court and the parties to the specific language of our mandate:
It is therefore considered by the Court that the decree of said Chancery Court in this cause rendered be and the same is hereby dismissed in accordance with the opinion herein delivered.
¶4Accordingly, petitioners’ writ of prohibition is granted.
¶5SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
¶6SEPTEMBER 19, 1988
¶7Petition for rehearing is denied.
¶8Justice, concurring. Respondents take exception with the term “appeal dismissed” which this court used in its original decision in this cause, Gipson v. Brown, 295 Ark. 371, 749 S.W.2d 297 (1988), and in its subsequent per curiam issued July 5, 1988, which reflected the court’s mandate dismissed the chancery court’s decree. Respondents claim the term “appeal dismissed” in the original opinion should control over the mandate language, and therefore would, they surmise, effectively affirm the chancellor’s decree below. Such a claim is unfounded. It is quite obvious that this court’s majority decision was in direct conflict with the chancellor’s decision and this court, based on the rationale and conclusion reached in its opinion, never intended to affirm the trial court’s holding. Because the use of the language “appeal dismissed” in the opinion was apparently confusing to the respondents, the court made an attempt by its July 5,1988 per curiam to clarify any confusion. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-67-325(a) (1987) (the supreme court may dismiss the cause and enter such judgment upon the record as it may in its discretion deem just). Unquestionably, this court has the authority to recall a mandate regularly issued in situations where a misapprehension exists. See 5(B) C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1996 (1958); see also Lindus v. N. Ins. Co. of New York, 103 Ariz. 160, 438 P.2d 315 (1968); Ginn v. Penobscot Co., 342 A.2d 270 (Me. 1970). Although I believe the majority opinion and the court’s mandate can only be read as countervailing and dismissing the trial court’s decree, I would recall the mandate and modify it to read, “Reversed and remanded with directions to the chancery court to dismiss this cause.” Surely, such modification would alleviate any misapprehensions or doubts as to what disposition the majority intended when delivering and issuing its opinion and mandate.
¶9dissenting. I dissent not only because the majority is so blatantly wrong, but because I want the record to clearly reveal that I did not in any way contribute to the manner in which this case has been handled by this court.
¶10The decision to grant the petition for a writ of prohibition was made more than 17 days after the opinion in this appeal had been rendered and the mandate issued. When one faction was ordered to show cause why it should not be held in contempt, the petition was filed in this court seeking temporary relief. We gave them what they asked for, and gratuitously dismissed the whole law suit without any consideration of the merits and in spite of the lack of any precedent from any jurisdiction to support such action.
¶11In a purely collateral proceeding, after the decision of the court had become final, the majority simply decided to put an end to the case by dismissing it. The precedent established by this action leaves open the right of any party to collaterally attack decisions of this court at any period in time. Unless this is a onetime-only case, our decisions can no longer be considered final. I wholeheartedly agree with the statements contained in the petition for rehearing, which is on file with the clerk of this court.
¶12I would grant the rehearing and reinstate the case to be heard on its merits.