{
  "id": 1488316,
  "name": "Moon v. Moseley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moon v. Moseley",
  "decision_date": "1943-01-25",
  "docket_number": "4-6939",
  "first_page": "134",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "205 Ark. 134"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "167 S.W.2d 871"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "116 S. W. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ark. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1515245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/89/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S. W. 578",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913375
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 S. W. 2d 952",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 Ark. 1111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1414967
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/192/1111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 Ark. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718999
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/201/0164-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 2216,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3919948614764799
    },
    "sha256": "64a2a097cf4aea92546c5fee539a5273c0ad3d8d8382e6641f6a3b19fb331938",
    "simhash": "1:804df6a73121141b",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:03.571044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Moon v. Moseley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McF addin, J.\nThis is the second appeal in this case. The opinion in the first appeal was rendered on October 28, 1940, in the case of Moseley v. Moon, 201 Ark. 164, 144 S. W. 2d 1089. An examination of the transcript in the present appeal reflects that on February 20, 1941, the chancery court entered a decree on the mandate, and by consent fixed $250 as the rental value of the property and rendered judgment against Pinkie Moon for said amount and for the cost of the appeal. Pinkie Moon filed no further pleadings of any kind in the case and made no resistance of any kind until February 9, 1942-, when she filed a motion to set aside the decree on the mandate and allow her to show other alleged defects in the tax sale which was challenged in the original case and affirmed by this court, as aforesaid. In the motion, Pinkie Moon claimed that she was not present in court in February, 1941. If any testimony was taken on the motion, it does not appear in the transcript. On February 20, 1942, the Chancery Court denied the motion, and appellant brings this appeal.\nIn the case of Bank of Russellville v. Walthall, 192 Ark. 1111, 96 S. W. 2d 952, this court said: \u201cA court, after lapse of the term, loses control over its final judgment and, in the absence of a statute conferring such power, cannot at \u00e1 subsequent term alter or vacate the same. Johnson v. Campbell, 52 Ark. 316, 12 S. W. 578. Only in the provisions of \u00a7\u00a7 571 and 573 of the Civil Code, now \u00a7\u00a7 6290 and 6292 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, is that authority to be found which can be exercised only in such manner and upon such terms as are prescribed therein. Ayers v. Anderson Tully Co., 89 Ark. 160, 116 S. W. 199. It is therefore necessary both to plead and prove the allegations relied upon for a vacation of the judgment, as well as a prima facie showing of a valid defense to the original action.\u201d\nFrom an examination of the transcript in the present appeal, it is clear that appellant has not complied with \u00a7 8246 of Pope\u2019s Digest, which is the same as \u00a7 6290 of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, and therefore the canse should be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McF addin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. S. Grant, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Moon v. Moseley.\n4-6939\n167 S. W. 2d 871\nOpinion delivered January 25, 1943.\nE. S. Grant, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0134-01",
  "first_page_order": 154,
  "last_page_order": 156
}