{
  "id": 8727165,
  "name": "Moss ad. vs. Smith",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moss ad. v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1858-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "683",
  "last_page": "684",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 Ark. 683"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "18 Ark. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ark. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. 515",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3319710846516867e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7912021125555969
    },
    "sha256": "1f376480f0908644a596e5f3238e07e4db6a485c39921a08c1b6012416feb4a9",
    "simhash": "1:0e91243a6a3d8f5d",
    "word_count": 344
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:38:03.385026+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Moss ad. vs. Smith."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice English\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nSmith brought an action of ejectment against Moss, in the Circuit Court of Van Bur\u00e9n county, for a tract of land.\nThe cause was tried upon the general issue, and verdict and judgment for the plaintiff.\nPending the trial, defendant excepted to several decisions of the Court, relating to the admission and exclusion of evidence, the charge to the jury, etc. tie also moved for a new trial, which the Court refused, and he appealed.\nIt does not appear that the appellant made any of the exceptions previously taken by him, grounds of his motion for a new trial, and they must, therefore,under an often repeated decision of this Court, be regarded as having been abandoned. See Nevill vs. Hancock, et al., 15 Ark. 515, and the previous decisions there collected.\nThe record recites that the appellant excepted to the decision^ of the Court overruling his motion for a new trial, and took a bill of exceptions, etc.; but the only bill of exceptions contained in the transcript before us, relates exclusively to the exceptions taken during the trial, and makes no reference to the motion for a new trial, or the decision of the Court upon it.\nUnless a party moving for a new trial except to the decision of the Court refusing it, he will be regarded as acquiescing. Hopkins et al. vs. Dowd, 6 Eng. R. 627; Vaden vs. Ellis, 18 Ark. 360; Sawyers vs. Lathrop, 4 Eng. 68.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice English"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Williams & Williams, for the appellant.",
      "JoRdan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Moss ad. vs. Smith.\nWhere a motion for a new trial is filed, the exceptions previously taken, and not made grounds of the motion, will be regarded as having been abandoned. (Nevill vs. Hancock el al., 15 Ark. 515.)\nUnless a party moving for a new trial except to the decision of the Court overruling it, he will be regarded as acquiescing. (Vaden vs. Ellis, 18 Ark. 360, and previous cases.)\nAppeal from Van Bur\u00e9n Circuit Court.\nHon. Beaufort H. Neely Circuit Judge.\nWilliams & Williams, for the appellant.\nJoRdan, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0683-01",
  "first_page_order": 683,
  "last_page_order": 684
}