Supreme Court

Decision Information

Decision Content

ARK.] CLARK V. ARK. DEMOCRAT Co. 497 MARVIN CLARK, GUARDIAN OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS HARVEY CAGE, A MINOR V. ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT COMPANY 5-1440 413 S. W. 2d 629 [Rehearing denied May 1, 1967.] APPEAL & ERRORDETERMINATION & DISPOSITION OF CAUSEREVERSAL & REMAND, EFFECT OF.—When Supreme Court reverses and remands a law case for new trial, the ease is tried de novo. .Supplemental opinion delivered May 1, 1967; re-hering denied. [Original opinion delivered March 13, 1961; page 133 ' 1 Appeal from Union Circuit Court, Second Division, Melvin Mayfield, Judge; reversed. Ben .D. Lindsey and Spencer & Spencer; By: Don Gillospie, for appellant. Robert C. Compton and Austin McCaskill, for ap-pellee_
498 CLARK V. ARK. DEMOCRAT Co. [242 LYLE BROWN, Justice. The original opinion contains this language: "Tinder the holding in Terry Dairy, and reiterated in Cox, this case should be reversed, with directions to the trial court to ascertain the damages." This phraseology could well be interpreted to mean that on retrial the only question to be submitted to the jury is damages. This interpretation does not comport with our case law. We have a long line of cases which hold that on remand for trial of a law case it is tried de novo. In the early ,case of Harrison v. Trader and wife 29 Ark. 85 (1874), this court Said, quoting with approval from an Alabama case: "When a judgment is reversed, the rights of the parties are immediately restored to the same con-' - ditiOn- in which-they Were before its rendition; and the judgment is said to be mere waste paper." This holding was approved in Holt v. Gregong, et al, 222 Ark. 610, 260 S. W. 2d 459 (1953) Also, see Manzo v. Boulet, 220 Ark. 106, 246 S. W. 2d 126 (1952) ; Martin v. Street Improvement District No. 349, 180 Ark. 298, 21 S. W. 2d 430 (1929) ; and Westinghouse Credit Corp. v. First National Bank of Green Forest, et al, 241 Ark. 287, 407 S. W. 2d 388 (1966). Rehearing denied.
 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.