Pope v. Pope

My vote was required, and was cast, to make the opinion in the cases of Howell v. Howell, and Stevens v. Stevens, ante, p. 298, 208 S. W. 2d 22, and I assume my full share of responsibility for the opinion in those cases, but having reached the conclusion that it is unsound, I am now voting to overrule it.

On the authority of the case of Caldwell v. Barrett, 71 Ark. 310, 74 S. W. 748, it was held that there could not be a de facto judge unless there was a de jure office, and I do not recede from that view. But was there a de jure office? This I think is the controlling question in the case.…