# Cummings v. Fingers

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · July 18, 1988 · 296 Ark. 276

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771308

## Case

- **Full name:** Millard CUMMINGS v. Earnest FINGERS, Sr., and Oleitt Fingers
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 18, 1988
- **Citations:** 296 Ark. 276; 753 S.W.2d 865; 1988 Ark. LEXIS 359
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Newbern
- **Judges:** Glaze, Newbern, Hickman, Purtle, Hays
- **Cited by:** 12 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/9771308

## Opinion text

David Newbern, Justice, concurring. The majority opinion is correct and fully expresses my views in this case. I write only to point out that in Monette Road Improvement Dist. v. Dudley, 144 Ark. 169 , 222 S.W. 59 (1920), this court held that the creation of the chancery courts in this state left no vestige of equity jurisdiction in the circuit courts. Two Arkansas cases have, however, sanctioned the granting of injunctive relief by a circuit court.
In Daley v. Digby, 272 Ark. 267 , 613 S.W.2d 589 (1981), this court did so, erroneously relying on a case which noted the granting of an injunction by a circuit court but in which its power to do so was not the issue on appeal. In Pinckney v. Mass Merchandisers, Inc., 16 Ark. App. 151 , 698 S.W.2d 310 (1985), the court of appeals held that a circuit court had the power to issue an injunction because Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-304 (1987) had not been interpreted as granting chancery courts exclusive jurisdiction in equity matters. That section provides, “Chancery courts shall have original jurisdiction in all matters in equity as fully as that exercised by the circuit courts of this state in counties where no separate chancery courts have been established prior to April 27, 1903.”
Neither the Daley case nor the Pinckney case cited Monette Road Improvement Dist. v. Dudley, supra. Nor did either offer a constitutional rationale to replace the one stated there. They have not been cited in the briefs in this case. If they are cited to us in the future as being inconsistent with this case, we should overrule them.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9771308. Public record. Not legal advice.