Fort Smith v. McLean

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Fort Smith v. McLean

60 S.W.2d 558, 187 Ark. 491, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 395

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 22, 1933

Docket4-3025

StatusPublished

This text of 60 S.W.2d 558 (Fort Smith v. McLean) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fort Smith v. McLean, 60 S.W.2d 558, 187 Ark. 491, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 395 (Ark. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Kirby, J.

This is the second appeal of this case, a sufficient statement of which appears in the former opinion in McLean v. Fort Smith, 185 Ark. 582, 48 S. W. (2d) 228.

The court directed a verdict in said cause, from which the appeal was taken, and this court reversed and remanded with directions for a new trial on April 11, 1932.

The facts developed upon this trial are virtually the same as were shown upon the first trial, and were in sharp conflict as to whether the building was a nuisance, and because that question was not submitted to the jury the cause was reversed.

Upon this trial upon virtually the same conflicting evidence, the. court refused to submit the question to the jury of whether the building constituted a nuisance in fact or at common law which could be abated by the city, submitting only the question of damages for its destruction to the jury — in effect directing a verdict upon the- very question for which the cause was remanded in the first appeal for determination by the jury — and, of course, erred in doing so, the former decision being the law of the case. McLean v. Ft. Smith, supra. See also Murphy v. Cupp, 182 Ark. 334, 31 S. W. (2d) 396.

The court erred in refusing to leave to the determination of the jury the question of whether the building-constituted in fact a nuisance that the city could abate, the ordinance giving it no such right unless the building was in fact a nuisance.

For this error, the judgment must be' reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kirby, J.

This is the second appeal of this case, a sufficient statement of which appears in the former opinion in McLean v. Fort Smith, 185 Ark. 582, 48 S. W. (2d) 228.

The court directed a verdict in said cause, from which the appeal was taken, and this court reversed and remanded with directions for a new trial on April 11, 1932.

The facts developed upon this trial are virtually the same as were shown upon the first trial, and were in sharp conflict as to whether the building was a nuisance, and because that question was not submitted to the jury the cause was reversed.

Upon this trial upon virtually the same conflicting evidence, the. court refused to submit the question to the jury of whether the building constituted a nuisance in fact or at common law which could be abated by the city, submitting only the question of damages for its destruction to the jury — in effect directing a verdict upon the- very question for which the cause was remanded in the first appeal for determination by the jury — and, of course, erred in doing so, the former decision being the law of the case. McLean v. Ft. Smith, supra. See also Murphy v. Cupp, 182 Ark. 334, 31 S. W. (2d) 396.

The court erred in refusing to leave to the determination of the jury the question of whether the building-constituted in fact a nuisance that the city could abate, the ordinance giving it no such right unless the building was in fact a nuisance.

For this error, the judgment must be' reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 S.W.2d 558, 187 Ark. 491, 1933 Ark. LEXIS 395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fort-smith-v-mclean-ark-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack