# Hale v. Road Improvement District No. 1

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · April 18, 1921 · 148 Ark. 316

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7811001

## Case

- **Full name:** Hale v. Road Improvement District No. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 18, 1921
- **Citations:** 148 Ark. 316; 230 S.W. 279; 1921 Ark. LEXIS 64
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Smith
- **Judges:** Smith
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7811001

## Opinion text

OPINION ON KEHEASING.
Smith, J. Counsel, in petition for rehearing, attempts to distinguish the instant case from that of Edgar v. Brown, supra, by stating that here the motion to dismiss was oral, while there it was in writing. It does not appear from the record before us, whether the motion was oral or in writing; but, assuming that the motion on which the court acted was oral, the reasoning of the court in Edgar v. Brown is still applicable. The point is that there was a motion to dismiss the appeal, and some showing must have been made to have invoked that action by the court. Testimony may have been 'heard which warranted that action. Counsel says that no competent testimony could have been heard on that motion; but in this he is mistaken, as appears from what we said in Edgar v. Brown, supra.
Looking only to the record before us, it appears that the appeal from the county court was dismissed, and, as it does not affirmatively appear that the court erred in making that order, the petition for rehearing is overruled.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7811001. Public record. Not legal advice.