{
  "id": 8727351,
  "name": "Smith et al. vs. State Bank",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. State Bank",
  "decision_date": "1850-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "28",
  "last_page": "29",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ark. 28"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 104,
    "char_count": 969,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.947487136851577e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3105729330165581
    },
    "sha256": "4f34ab35656630224dd9d0c1bd2f0ea3a618089d85375ecd362e8178d6acdc67",
    "simhash": "1:df08d8985c9ced64",
    "word_count": 169
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:09:57.742091+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Smith et al. vs. State Bank."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe plaintiff below commenced this action within one year after suffering a non-suit in a cause against the same parties on the same cause of action, (James et al. vs. Biscoe et al., 5 Eng. Rep. 184.) which first action was commenced within three years after the accrual of the cause of action, (Dig. chap. 99, sec. 24, p. 699.) The finding and judgment of the court in the case before us was therefore correct, and consequently there was no error in refusing the motion for a new trial.\nAnd as the execution of the judgment below was not stayed, there seems no good reason for awarding damages upon this affirmance. (Dig. 828, sec. 40.)\nLet the judgment be affirmed with costs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. Walker, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Smith et al. vs. State Bank.\nLimitation \u2014 effect of suit within the bar, 11011-suit, and renewal within a year.\nAppeal from Washington Circuit Court.\nW. Walker, for appellants.\nCarroll, Bank Attorney, referred to sec. 24, chap. 99, Dig."
  },
  "file_name": "0028-01",
  "first_page_order": 28,
  "last_page_order": 29
}