{
  "id": 1418569,
  "name": "Sullivan v. Smith",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sullivan v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1935-10-21",
  "docket_number": "4-3994",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "461",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "191 Ark. 460"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "57 S. W. (2d) 403",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 Ark. 998",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/186/0998-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1824,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.5,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05334114073832104
    },
    "sha256": "03035325dc77a17c1c517c042b20305a40bc2ad3c9b487ee90ef9c5b9b5eea31",
    "simhash": "1:976e864d7832a166",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:58:19.493067+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sullivan v. Smith."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment rendered in the circuit court of Poinsett County of the 17th day of December, 1934, setting aside a judgment for $5,000 rendered against appellee herein in favor of appellant herein at the former term of said court for injuries received by him in the operation of an automobile while in her employment and while engaged in the performance of his duties of an employee and granting her a new trial in the original suit.\nIn taking this appeal, appellant herein failed to file a stipulation On his part to the effect that if the order of the circuit court be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered by this court against him. A part of the second subdivision of \u00a7 2129 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest reads as follows:\n\u201cBut no appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting a new trial, in a case made or bill of exceptions shall be effectual for any purpose, unless the notice of appeal contains an assent on the part of appellant that, if the order be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered against the appellant.\u201d\nThe order setting aside the original judgment and granting appellee a new trial cannot be appealed from unless the appellant assents that, if the order be affirmed, judgment absolute shall be rendered against him. No such assent appears in this appeal. A compliance with this statute is a jurisdictional requirement and a failure to comply with it, n\u00e9c\u00e9ssarily works a dismissal of the'appeal. Cormack v. Missouri State Life Insurance Company, 186 Ark. 998, 57 S. W. (2d) 403, and eases cited therein.\nThe appeal is' dismissed, the effect of which is to leave the original case pending in the circuit court for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. T. Carpenter, for appellant.",
      "Arthur L. Adams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sullivan v. Smith.\n4-3994\nOpinion delivered October 21, 1935.\nC. T. Carpenter, for appellant.\nArthur L. Adams, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 479
}