{
  "id": 1475732,
  "name": "Marshall v. Snyder",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marshall v. Snyder",
  "decision_date": "1945-10-29",
  "docket_number": "4-7683",
  "first_page": "216",
  "last_page": "217",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ark. 216"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "190 S.W.2d 291"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "116 S. W. 2d 585",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ark. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1462484
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/196/0048-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1634,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05527194828733258
    },
    "sha256": "5b6e2ce5991e445cabed6ff5b9943aa1f6b55e752932505cdc02f6702f156e20",
    "simhash": "1:f6b9b41575370211",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:59.179776+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Marshall v. Snyder."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nAppellant, Mrs. L. Marshall, secured a default judgment against appellee, Maudell Snyder, in a court of a justice of the peace, for $137, as balance alleged to be due appellant on tuition for a business course. Appellee in apt time appealed. She contended that she had paid appellant $128, which was all that was due her. Upon a jury trial, a verdict was returned in favor of appellee, and this appeal followed.\nAppellant, in her motion for a new trial, assigned errors as follows: \u201c1. That the verdict of the jury is contrary to law. 2. That the verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence. 3. That the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and evidence.\u201d No error was alleged as to any of the instructions.\nThe issue presented was one of fact for the jury\u2019s determination and it is our duty to affirm the judgment on the jury\u2019s verdict if we find any substantial evidence when viewed most favorably to appellee to sustain, the jury\u2019s finding (Arkansas Motor Coaches, Ltd., v. Williams, 196 Ark. 48, 116 S. W. 2d 585).\nAfter reviewing all of the testimony, we find it to be in irreconcilable conflict and no useful purpose would be served in detailing it liere. Appellant testified that under her oral agreement with appellee, appellee owed the amount sued for, and appellee testified that she had paid appellant all that was due. The jury has accepted appellee\u2019s version of the matter, and since her testimony was substantial, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant pro se.",
      "C. M. Martin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Marshall v. Snyder.\n4-7683\n190 S. W. 2d 291\nOpinion delivered October 29, 1945.\nRehearing denied December 3, 1945.\nAppellant pro se.\nC. M. Martin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0216-01",
  "first_page_order": 232,
  "last_page_order": 233
}