{
  "id": 8728102,
  "name": "Biscoe et al., Trustees, &c. vs. Maddin, adr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Biscoe v. Maddin",
  "decision_date": "1852-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "765",
  "last_page": "766",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "12 Ark. 765"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "5 Ark. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727868
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/5/0665-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2264,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.719567370958748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29643523618558454
    },
    "sha256": "0bce522d666966eb8538e915caffbb125c7ff57272d474de977300914f63974d",
    "simhash": "1:059fd888f98c94cd",
    "word_count": 404
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:49.158040+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Biscoe et al., Trustees, &c. vs. Maddin, adr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Scott\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe appeal in this case was taken in pursuance of the statute. No bond for costs was necessary, (Dig. 142, sec. 176, and p. 143, sec. 183.) The 3d section of the act approved the 4th January, 1849, (Pamphalet Acts,p. 59,) applies to appeals from the county courts authorized by the second section of that act, and in no respect applies to appeals frt\u00edm the Probate court, the case of Morrow v. Walker and wife, (5 Eng. 569,) to the contrary notwithstanding, which case is hereby overruled.\nJudgment reversed, and cause remanded to be proceeded with.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Scott"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pike & Cummins, for the appellants,",
      "F. W. & P. Teapnall, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Biscoe et al., Trustees, &c. vs. Maddin, adr.\nOn appeals from the Probate to the Circuit Court, appellant is not required to give bond for costs. (Digest ,<fmp. 4, secs. 176,183.)\nThe 3d section of the act of 4th January, 1849, (Pamp. Acts p. 59,) applies to appeals from the county courts authorized by the second section of that act, and in no respect applies to appeals from the Probate Court.\nMorrow v. Walter and wife, 5 Eng. Rep. 569, contra, is overruled.\nAppeal from Pope Circuit Court.\nAt the October term, 1849, of the Probate Court of the county of Pope, that court refused to allow a claim presented by the Trustees of the Real Estate Bank, against the estate of James Maddin, dismissed the case and adjudged the costs against the Trustees, They appealed to the circuit, where, in March, 1850, on motion of the administrator, the case was dismissed for want of bond for costs- \u2014 -and'the Trustees appealed to this court.\nThere are three cases standing on precisely the same ground.\nPike & Cummins, for the appellants,\ncontended that under the act of 4th January, 1849, the only restrictions on the appeals therein provided for from the Probate Court, were those prescribed in chap. 14, Dig.; that the 3d section of the act of 1849, requiring a bond for costs, applied only to the appeal, allowed by the 2d section, from the county court; and cited King v. Gioenop, 3 T. jR. 135. King v. Marks, 3 East 157. Morris v. Mellin, 6 B. & C. 446. Bennett v. Danicll, 10 B. & C. 500. The State v. Lawson, 5 Ark. 665, as settling the proper construction of the act.\nF. W. & P. Teapnall, contra,\nrelied upon the case of Morrow v. Walker and wife, 5 Eng. 570."
  },
  "file_name": "0765-01",
  "first_page_order": 765,
  "last_page_order": 766
}