Polk v. Frierson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Mandamus to Clay Chancery Court; Charles D. Frierson, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. In the case of Stephens v. Stephens, 108 Ark. 53, the decree of the chancery court was reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that court “to vacate its decree cancelling and annulling the deed in question.” Upon the filing of the mandate petitioner here asked to be made a party plaintiff to that suit.
Read the full summary
Mandamus to Clay Chancery Court; Charles D. Frierson, Chancellor; STATEMENT BY THE COURT. In the case of Stephens v. Stephens, 108 Ark. 53, the decree of the chancery court was reversed and the cause remanded with directions to that court “to vacate its decree cancelling and annulling the deed in question.” Upon the filing of the mandate petitioner here asked to be made a party plaintiff to that suit. The chancellor denied his petition, and entered a decree in accordance with the mandate of the-Supreme Court. The petitioner then filed his petition in this court for a writ of mandamus to…
1Opinion of the Court
Wood, J.,
(after stating the facts). The judgment of this court reversing the decree of the chancellor in the ease of Stephens v. Stephens (108 Ark. 53) and remanding that cause with directions to vacate its decree cancelling and annulling the deed in question, was an end to the litigation involved in that lawsuit. That was a final decree settling the rig’hts of the parties to that litigation, and the chancellor could only enter a decree as directed by this court. The chancery court had no power, after the mandate of this court was filed directing it to enter a decree cancelling and annulling…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hopson v. FriersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Stephens v. StephensSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Walker v. GoodletSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
3Cited by2 opinions
- Brown v. OlssonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1949
- New England Securities Co. v. AfflickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927