for the plaintiff for a stipulated price. A withdrawal of the convicts from the premises of the plaintiff was not a taking or trespass upon the latter's property. It was only a refusal to perform the alleged contract which plaintiff seeks to restrain.
It is with great reluctance that we have concluded to review the McConnell case and overrule the doctrine therein announced, but a majority of the judges are of the opinion that the decision was wrong, and contrary to the great weight of authority. The overruling of a decision has the unfortunate tendency of rendering the laws of the State less certain. Decisions which become rules of property should never be overruled, whether they are right or wrong. But where, as in this instance, no rule of property is disturbed, and the dignity and sovereignty of the State is involved, we conceive it to be our duty to correct the mistake of the court as speedily as possible by overruling a former decision which we have become thoroughly satisfied is erroneous and contrary to the recognized rules established by the other courts of the country. No one can have a vested right to sue the State. The State can either extend or withhold the right. All who contract with the State must do so with full knowledge that they must rely solely upon the legislative branch for performance of the contract and for satisfaction of the State's just obligations. Even the privilege of suing the State, when once extended, does not afford the basis of a vested right to sue or to prosecute to termination a suit once commenced; and such privilege may be withdrawn without disturbing any vested right, even after suit has been commenced. Beers v. State, 20 Howard, 572.
The plaintiff cannot complain because the court overrules its former decision, even though that decision permitted the plaintiff to maintain its suit similar to the one now before us.
The judgment of the chancery court, adjudging the petitioner to be in contempt of that court, is therefore quashed, and said proceedings against the petitioner are dismissed.
HART, J., (concurring.) A majority of the judges think that the allegations of the complaint which was the basis of the injunction, for a disobedience of which Pitcock was fined, bring this case squarely within the principles of McConnell v. Arkansas Brick & Manufacturing Company, 70 Ark. 568; and that the
