{
  "id": 8726454,
  "name": "Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1927-10-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "1161",
  "last_page": "1163",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ark. 1161"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "221 S. W. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 Ark. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1589441
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/143/0463-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 288,
    "char_count": 3532,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.279034880960449e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7847175646147709
    },
    "sha256": "ad8f3ec02f3961abf2ec35e564a084fa120bd55db0a833a1e9e34c9f920a56e6",
    "simhash": "1:4c69fd7d0a2606e9",
    "word_count": 552
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:30.257148+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nThis is an appeal by Fred W. Martin and Ida IT. Martin from a judgment rendered in the circuit court of Arkansas, County on the 24th day of August, 1926, against them, J, TI, Martin and Frank IT, Martin and\u2019each of them, , in. fayor. \\\\qf \\\\app,elje5e.\u00a1 for $1,123.33 with interest at the rate sjk \u00a1pe-r. cent. _ per annum from the date of the judgment. ;It was.alleged,in the amended and substituted complaint tha|e said .appellants were members of a partnership .trading\u2019 under, thp name of \u201cThe Martin Company,\u201d.to .whom appellee sol.d merchandise in the amount for which suit was brought. The original complaint referred to the partnership as J. H. Martin & Company, and did not allege that Prank II. Martin was a partner.\nAppellants filed an answer, denying that they or either of them were partners in the Martin Trading Company. On September 15, 1926, they filed a motion for a new \"trial on the ground that no proof was introduced in support of the issue raised, and that for such reason the, judgment was without evidence to sustain it. \u2019 Oh December 6, 1926, appellee filed a verified motion :i;pr correct the judgment entered on August 24, 1926, so as to show that, before the rendition of said judgment, proof was introduced to establish that appellants were members of the partnership of \u201cThe Martin Company.\u201d After hearing testimony, the court corrected the judgment' so as to embrace a recital that proof was introduced before the original judgment was entered to show that appellants were partners doing business as \u201cThe Martin Company.\u201d- The court then overruled the motion for a new trial, over appellant\u2019s objection and exception.\nAlthough appellants objected and excepted to the order of the court correcting the judgment, they did not preserve the objection and exception, either in a supplemental motion for a new trial or by amendment to their original motion for new trial. This court therefore cannot determine whether the evidence adduced by appellee on its motion to correct the judgment was sufficient to justify the correction. The rule is that this court will not consider alleged errors of the trial court unless embraced in a motion for a new trial. Van Hoozer v. Hendricks, 143 Ark. 463, 221 S. W. 378.\n'The'recital in the judgment, byway of amendment, tb' the .effect-that 'the- trial court'heard-evidbh\u00f3\u00e9 to show \u00edj*-\u00ed ! / \u00a1 ' * ] ; *}' \u00dc-i-1 ! \u2018 * i j 1' \u2018 f j \u00a1\u00a1 i\u00bbni j j i \u201d * '4 (J ! t * \u2018\u25a0\u2019\u00fc ,\u00bb/ I ri * that appellants, .wOrc\u00ed;iUQ2pDGrq o\u00ed r the partnership doing l\u00ednslnesNas ^Tl\u00ede 'Martin. ,Oon%anyM/mps.t!b'\u00e9i\u00edai\u00f3ce\u00edpWd bj-'tMs-c\u00f3\u00fciH'\u00e1s''\u00e9dnclii\u00e1iye of 'tn\u00e1\u2019t f'\u00e1ct;1 !\nWb\u2019Wbioli/.tbiiik^tbe'N\u00e1t\u00edailee ftettfedir't\u00edte^iiyi\u00ediefe ^tT.^H/M\u2019a\u00e1rffi\u00f11 Fqnrjbany,!T 'siddf \u2018^T\u00fc\u00e9' M&M\u00e1\u2019 \u2019 .boif\u00ed\u00f3k\u00ed\u00ed^,s> ib! :tb\u00e9 \"tVb: homibihints'vis \u00bflifficikht; to\" !\u00e9bair'\u00e1t\u00edteibz\u00e91'' 'th'\u00e9 \u00edattef'-\u00e9M\u00cd \u25a0\u00e1s';a\u2018,s\u00e9p!arate':\u00e1ri'd\u00ed,diktit\u00edct \u2019ihii't.1'* Bbdhih'ppeil.-la\u00cdLts'iV\u00e9!r\u00e9l :m\u00e1d\u00e9' 'd\u00e9f\u00e9i\u00edd\u00e1\u00edibs _ ib ;thfe flb\u00e1t,;s\u00f1lt' j&'\u00e9 -jfeW\u00e9fs the second, -alid\"'the\"\u2018sa\u00edne1 \u00e1e'eo\u00fc\u00f1t'1 wa's'\u00edhttabhed\u00ed:\u00e1h\u201c\u00e1\u00edh ekhibi-hto bot\u00edn com^'la\u00ednts^.bo'thb\u00e1ccomitsvhavmghbeen made out against \u201cThe Martin Company. Vu.iTfeei fhjst gnit .-Map' fiied! within, the- 'statnt.bEy\u00a1'pei\u2019\u00cd0d.\u00ed 0-f\u00a1 .'Hpaithtions, and the aQeqnntThquefor.&ivas not \u00a1'baited^ c h->; r.m rr. /\u25a0>\nNo error appearing, the-'judgmept'lis: affibrnieflifl-;'i<>",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. J. Moher and John L. Ingram, for appellant.",
      "Sam T. & Tom Poe, Floyd Sharp and McDonald Poe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation.\nOpinion delivered October 17, 1927.\nT. J. Moher and John L. Ingram, for appellant.\nSam T. & Tom Poe, Floyd Sharp and McDonald Poe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1161-01",
  "first_page_order": 1179,
  "last_page_order": 1181
}