{
  "id": 1366069,
  "name": "Chaffin v. Lee County National Bank",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chaffin v. Lee County National Bank",
  "decision_date": "1921-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "106",
  "last_page": "108",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "151 Ark. 106"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "35 Ark. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873877,
        1873854
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/35/0438-02",
        "/ark/35/0438-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ark. 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1870915
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/37/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 Ark. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907408
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/64/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. 482",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890473
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0482-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ark. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1316115
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/98/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ark. 172",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1897216
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/40/0172-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 3936,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.5754854646575e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4026201913702305
    },
    "sha256": "dae4f446675894869fd8336e491aabefd0d2760f6d5d3a74de3700cf9b3f4c86",
    "simhash": "1:baf9a82131e21ec6",
    "word_count": 690
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:18:51.844541+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Chaffin v. Lee County National Bank."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nOn February 5, .1921, the Lee County National Bank brought suit against appellants and F, O. Love on a note of $6,000, executed by appellants to Love. Appellants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that they had not been properly served with summons, and that the copy served upon them did not bear teste and was not signed by the clerk. This motion was heard by the court and dismissed, and as appellants failed and refused to plead further a judgment was rendered against them by default, from which is this appeal.\nThe bill of exceptions made upon the hearing of' the motion to dismiss was not signed and approved by the trial judge. Attached to the bill of exceptions, however, is the certificate of the official stenographer of the First Judicial Circuit (of which Lee County, where the trial occurred, is a part), to the effect that \u201cthe foregoing bill of exceptions contains a true and correct transcript of my stenographic notes taken on the motion of defendants to dismiss service of summons; that no testimony on the merits of the issue was had. \u2019 \u2019\nThe insistence is that this certificate of the stenographer suffices, for the reason that act 163 of the Acts of 1921 (Special Acts 1921, p. 270) renders the approval of the presiding judge to the-bill of exceptions unnecessary. The section of act 163 which is said to thus change the law is section 3 and reads as follows:\n\u201cSection 3. It shall be the duty of said stenographic reporter, upon request of either party to a case, to transcribe into typewritten manuscript from his stenographic report all matters of proceedings taken by him; provided, that the party requesting the same shall be required to pay said stenographic reporter ten (10) cents per one hundred words for the original ribbon copy thereof and five (5) cents per one hundred words for each carbon copy of said proceedings, which said transcript, when certified by him as true and correct, shall be used as a part of the bill of exceptions and as a part of the transcript in the Supreme Court on appeal without the necessity of .another copy thereof; provided, further, that in felony cases this requirement shall not be made of a pauper, after due proof of such pauperism. \u2019 \u2019\nWe think the section quoted has no such purpose as appellants ascribed to it. The purpose of the act was to permit and require the official stenographer, in transcribing his notes, to make a \u201cribbon copy thereof,\u201d so that it would not be necessary for the clerk of the court in which the trial occurred, in making up the transcript, to make a copy of the bill of exceptions as prepared by the stenographer, but to permit the use of the copy made by the stenographer in the transcript. In other words, the necessity of copying the bill of exceptions by the clerk was to be dispensed with.\nThe act was intended only to save labor and not to deprive the presiding judge of the right and duty to approve the bill of exceptions.\nThere being no bill of exceptions in the case, the presumption is conclusive that the testimony heard by the court supported his finding on the question of fact.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lee & Moore and Jonas F. Dyson, for appellants.",
      "Daggett & Daggett, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Chaffin v. Lee County National Bank.\nOpinion delivered December 12, 1921.\nBill of exceptions \u2014 approval of judge. \u2014 Sp. Acts 1921, p. 270, providing that the court stenographer of the First Judicial District should transcribe his stenographic report of proceedings, which, when certified by him \u201cshall be used as a part of the bill of exceptions\u201d, did not dispense with the necessity of having the trial judge approve the bill of exceptions.\n- Appeal from Lee Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge;\naffirmed.\nLee & Moore and Jonas F. Dyson, for appellants.\nDaggett & Daggett, for appellee.\nThis case should be affirmed for failure to file a bill of exceptions, as required by law. C. & M. Digest, \u00a7 1321; 40 Ark. 172; 131 Ark.'243; 98 Ark. 449; 46 Ark. 482; 64 Ark. 597; 37 Ark. 528; 35 Ark. 438."
  },
  "file_name": "0106-01",
  "first_page_order": 132,
  "last_page_order": 134
}