{
  "id": 236703,
  "name": "E. Byington and Benjamin Murphy vs. James Lemmons",
  "name_abbreviation": "Byington v. Lemmons",
  "decision_date": "1822-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "12",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 12"
    }
  ],
  "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": 87,
    "char_count": 1032,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "sha256": "529853bde74fd40735a4fac16fe0d65d7650beebe4a24d9a379058fa9e1bb21a",
    "simhash": "1:b12da3b82f03c9b2",
    "word_count": 178
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:42.619619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "E. Byington and Benjamin Murphy vs. James Lemmons."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion of tiie Court. \u2014 The only question we deem important is the variance between the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the court.\nThe verdict is for \u201c eighty-nine dollars in damages,\u201d and the judgment is for damages assessed by the jury, and also for interest thereon from the rendition of the judgment before the justice of the peace. We are of opinion that the court erred in adding interest to the damages found by the jury.\nIt was the province of the jury to decide upon the question of interest, and it must be presumed, if any ought to have been awarded, that it was included in their assessment of damages. , ' Reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. Byington and Benjamin Murphy vs. James Lemmons.\nWhere damages are assessed by a jury, the court, on rendering judgment therefor, cannot add interest from a time anterior to the verdict, as it is presumed that interest was embraced in the damages, if interest ought to have been given at all.\nApril, 1822.\n\u2014 Appeal determined before Benjamin Johnson, Andrew Scott, and Joseph Selden, judges."
  },
  "file_name": "0012-01",
  "first_page_order": 28,
  "last_page_order": 28
}