{
  "id": 1475774,
  "name": "Watson v. Suddoth",
  "name_abbreviation": "Watson v. Suddoth",
  "decision_date": "1946-03-18",
  "docket_number": "4-7850",
  "first_page": "940",
  "last_page": "941",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ark. 940"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "193 S.W.2d 326"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 S. W. 2d 936",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 Ark. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1478596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/208/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 S. W. 2d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 Ark. 1197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1888,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5202951986776063
    },
    "sha256": "07a137385f86b457281739e2bc6a6385ef9c2735c6c0913aba02ec185da91d14",
    "simhash": "1:1bdcd6743bb5dd9e",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:59.179776+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Watson v. Suddoth."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nThis is the third appeal of this case. The first appeal was ordered dismissed in an opinion not published in our reports (202 Ark. 1197), but published in 149 S. W. 2d 563, for non-compliance with Rule 9.\nIt was held in the opinion on the second appeal, 208 Ark. 205,185 S. W. 2d 936, that the decree from which the appeal came would have to be affirmed, for the reason that oral testimony heard at the trial had not been preserved and brought into the record.\nThe present appeal must also be dismissed for noncompliance with Rule 9, although the decree would be affirmed even though the rule had been complied with, for the reason that the testimony upon which the decree was rendered has not been brought into the record. There appears in the transcript now before us a complaint which alleges that the decree from which the second appeal was prosecuted had been obtained by fraud. There was an answer denying this allegation which pleaded the previous adjudication of the issues which the complaint sought to raise.\nThere appears also in the present record an ex parte statement in the form of an affidavit, not taken as a deposition consisting of questions and answers. There then follows the decree from which is this appeal, which recites that the cause was heard on oral and documentary evidence, none of which appears in transcript. It was said in the opinion on the second appeal that in the absence of the testimony a conclusive presumption would be indulged that the omitted testimony sustained the finding upon which the decree was based. Here the decree must be affirmed for the same reason, even though Rule 9 had been complied with.\nThe decree must therefore be affirmed, and it is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. M. Watson, pro se.",
      "Burke, Moore & Walker, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Watson v. Suddoth.\n4-7850\n193 S. W. 2d 326\nOpinion delivered March 18, 1946.\nRehearing denied April 15, 1946.\nE. M. Watson, pro se.\nBurke, Moore & Walker, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0940-01",
  "first_page_order": 956,
  "last_page_order": 957
}