{
  "id": 236536,
  "name": "Hiram Smith, appellant, vs. Alexander S. Walker and James Gibson, appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Walker",
  "decision_date": "1835-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "289",
  "last_page": "290",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 289"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 9132,
    "name": "Superior Court of the Territory of Arkansas"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1662,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "sha256": "52f74f83ff96ddc47a0c18040d4f45b5e5016353b3d6228ca999c8828dbe567f",
    "simhash": "1:0616d43c8a40cb5a",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:42.619619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hiram Smith, appellant, vs. Alexander S. Walker and James Gibson, appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion oe the Court. \u2014 This was an appeal from theHempstead circuit court, arid was submitted to the court upon a reargued case, as to whether the bond upon which this suit is instituted, is void or not.\nThe first part of the bond is in the usual form, binding themselves to the plaintiff Smith in the penal sum of one hundred and twenty dollars, and then follows the conditions, namely, \u201c That whereas the said A. S. Walker has this day prayed an appeal, wherein Pliram Smith is plaintiff, and the said Walker is defendant, now if the said A. S. Walker, etc.\u201d This bond neither sets out the nature of the action, nor the court to which the appeal is prayed, and is certainly informal. There is enough, however, in the bond to authorize a court to enter a judgment. It is sufficiently certain to prevent a second recovery against either the principal, or Gibson the security, and the object of the bond being clearly legal, and nothing appearing on the face of it to show it to be void, it is to be taken as valid, Chitty on Contracts, p. 73.\nThis court is of opinion there was error in the court below, in sustaining the demurrer on account of the supposed invalidity of the bond. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hiram Smith, appellant, vs. Alexander S. Walker and James Gibson, appellees.\n1. Appeal bond which does not set out the nature of the action, nor the court to which the appeal is prayed, is informal, but not void, and should not be-adjudged invalid.\n2. It is sufficiently certain to prevent a second recovery against either principal or security.\nJuly, 1835.\n\u2014 Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court, determined before Benjamin Johnson and Archibald Yell, judges."
  },
  "file_name": "0289-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 306
}
