{ "id": 1537564, "name": "Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson", "name_abbreviation": "Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson", "decision_date": "1914-06-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "237", "last_page": "239", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "113 Ark. 237" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "89 Ark. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1515245 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/89/0160-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 216, "char_count": 4412, "ocr_confidence": 0.473, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.562115508753066e-07, "percentile": 0.9472783934507378 }, "sha256": "e19fc0116fa3d7839ddf7848c56271652b96d08b5bc5b47548acebe70f895a55", "simhash": "1:a8a8f9bd7c1ddc59", "word_count": 787 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:31.349152+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts). Section 2421 of Kirby\u2019s Digest, provides: \u201cThe application for a new trial must be made at the same term at which the verdict \u25a0is rendered, unless the judgment is postponed to another term, in which case it may be made at any time before judgment. \u2019 \u2019\nThis statute contemplates that the motion for a new trial shall be made at the same term of the court at which the verdict is rendered, and that it shall be acted upon at that term unless the judgment is postponed to another term. In the present case, judgment was entered at the term of the court at which the trial was had, and that term of the court adjourned without the court setting aside the judgment. This judgment, therefore, became final, and the court had no power to set the same aside at the succeeding term.\nThe order of the court continuing the cause after the motion for a new trial was filed did not have the effect to set -aside the judgment. Under the statute, when the appellee filed his motion for a new trial, the court might have postponed entering the judgment until another term of the court, and continued the hearing on the motion, and that woiild have operated as a continuance of the cause. In that case the appellee might have had his motion for a new trial passed on at the subsequent term, but this was not done, and therefore the appellee lost the benefit of his motion for a new trial when the term of the court at which his trial was had and judgment entered was adjourned until court in course.\nWhere judgment is entered and becomes final by adjournment of the term of court during which the verdict was rendered, it can not be opened up and a new trial granted at any subsequent term. See Ayers v. Anderson-Tully Co., 89 Ark. 160.\nIt follows that the court erred in entering a judgment setting aside the verdict and discharging the defendant, and exonerating the bondsmen, and entering a judgment for costs against the appellant. The judgment is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the application for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "J. N. Moore, for appellant.", "The verdict of the jury was right and should stand.", "No brief for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson.\nOpinion delivered June 1, 1914.\n1. Judgment \u2014 finality\u2014motion for new trial. \u2014 Where judgment is rendered, and the court does not pass upon a motion for a new trial filed, during that term, after the expiration of the term, the judgment becomes final, and the court has no power to set the same aside lait the succeeding term. (Page 239.)\n2. Judgment \u2014 motion for new trial \u2014 continuance.\u2014Where a judgment has been rendered, the filing of a motion for a new trial and the continuing of the cause thereafter, does not have the effect of setting aside the judgment. (Page 239.)\n3. Judgment \u2014 adjournment of term \u2014 finality.\u2014Where a judgment is entered and becomes final by adjournment of the term during which the judgment was rendered, it can not he opened up and a new trial granted at a subsequent term. (Page 239.)\nAppeal from Clay Circuit Court, Western District; J. F. Gautney, Judge;\nreversed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe attorney for the incorporated town of Corning filed an information with the mayor, charging the appellee with the crime of running a house of assignation contrary to the ordinances of the town. Appellee was convicted by the mayor and appealed to the circuit court. In the circuit court he was tried by a jury, who returned a verdict of guilty against him, assessing his fine at the sum of $25. The court, at that term of the court, entered a judgment in favor of the appellant against the appellee for the sum of $25, as a fine, and all costs, and directed \u201cthat if said fine and costs, are not promptly paid, said defendant be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Clay County, and that he be confined in the jail of said county until said, fine and costs are fully paid, not to exceed one day for each seventy-five cents.\u201d\nOn the next day after this judgment was entered, appellee filed his motion for a new trial, and the record shows that \u201cthe cause is continued until court in course,\u201d At the succeeding term of the court, the court set aside the verdict for the reason that there was \u201cnot sufficient evidence to support it,\u201d and entered up a judgment discharging the appellant and his bondsmen, and for costs against the town. This appeal has been duly prosecuted.\nJ. N. Moore, for appellant.\nThe verdict of the jury was right and should stand.\nNo brief for appellee." }, "file_name": "0237-01", "first_page_order": 257, "last_page_order": 259 }