{
  "id": 1364154,
  "name": "Matyski v. Buczkowski",
  "name_abbreviation": "Matyski v. Buczkowski",
  "decision_date": "1922-02-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "89",
  "last_page": "90",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "152 Ark. 89"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "82 Ark. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1529005
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/82/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 Ark. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1562523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/118/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Ark. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1310964
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/101/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ark. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1529005
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/82/0490-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2356,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.059989733099374e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5563399642218523
    },
    "sha256": "0015adfcf6a9b805cf4cc6ae707be4e992efa2c79c0a195b891e5089a42eba11",
    "simhash": "1:854a372f6a63802d",
    "word_count": 395
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:00.627662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Matyski v. Buczkowski."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nAppellant instituted this action against appellee in the circuit court of Prairie County, (Northern District) to recover the sum of $221.80, alleged to be due on account for money deposited by appellant with appellee for safekeeping. Appellee answered, denying that the money was deposited with him for the purposes mentioned in the complaint and alleging that the amounts were delivered to him (appellee) as par.tial payments on certain land notes. There was a trial of the issues, which resulted in a verdict in appellant\u2019s favor for .the full amount claimed in the complaint. Appellee filed a motion for a new trial, and the court, in passing on the motion, required appellant to enter' a remittitur of $110, and, upon refusal of appellant to enter a remittitur, the court set aside the verdict and granted a new trial.\nAppellant prayed for an appeal, which was granted by the court, but he failed to stipulate, as required by the statute (Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 2129, subdivision 2), that \u201cif the order be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered against the appellant.\u201d The appeal therefore was not properly taken and is unavailable. Osborn v. LeMaire, 82 Ark. 490; St. L. I. M. & S. Ry Co. v. Hix, 101 Ark. 90; Yowell v. Fort Smith Pure Milk Co., 118 Ark. 448.\nThe appeal not being properly taken, the cause still stands for trial on the docket of the circuit court, the same as if an appeal had not been attempted.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Emmet Vaughan, for appellant.",
      "Cooper Thivedtt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Matyski v. Buczkowski.\nOpinion delivered February 20, 1922.\nAppeal and error \u2014 appeal from order granting new trial \u2014 dismissal.' \u2014 Where the trial court set aside a verdict in favor of plaintiff and granted a new trial to defendant, and plaintiff appealed without filing- the stipulation required by Crawford o\u00ed Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 2129, subdiv. 2, that \u201cif the order be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered against the appellant\u201d, the appeal will be dismissed.\nAppeal from Prairie Circuit Court, Northern District; George W. Clark, Judge;\nappeal dismissed.\nEmmet Vaughan, for appellant.\nCooper Thivedtt, for appellee.\nAn \u2019 appeal will not lie from an order granting a new trial unless the appellant in his notice of appeal agrees that if the order be affirmed judgment absolute shall'be rendered against him. C. & M. Digest \u00a7 2129; 82 Ark. 490; 305 Td. 324; 303 Id. 90; 138 Id. 448."
  },
  "file_name": "0089-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 114
}