{
  "id": 1868263,
  "name": "Martin vs. Jackson, as ad.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Jackson",
  "decision_date": "1860-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "286",
  "last_page": "287",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ark. 286"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 Ark. 397",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726194
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/17/0397-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ark. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Ark. 137",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728087
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/15/0137-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ark. 344",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728154
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/13/0344-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1713,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1077193646190259e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7627129998698766
    },
    "sha256": "191d1038c939d90a5303852731fbdb36a42bf303ca8f062f2f400d682ce1e808",
    "simhash": "1:dd8d4a6d4c25e41d",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:46:32.809826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin vs. Jackson, as ad."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Compton,\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis was a proceeding, in the Probate Court, by John Martin, for the allowance and classification of a claim against the estate of Turner W. Goswick, deceased.\nFrom the judgment of the Probate Court allowing the claim, the administrator appealed to the Circuit Court, wher.e on inspection of the record, the allowance was adjudged erroneous, and a trial de novo awarded.\nNeither party desiring a jury, the cause was submitted to the court'for trial, and the finding and judgment were for the administrator.\nMartin appealed.\nThe questions discussed by counsel, touching the merits of this controversy, are not before us. There was no motion for a new trial in the court below, nor was exception taken to any ruling or decision of the court, whereby the appellant put his finger upon, or pointed out any alleged error of law. The case therefore, falls clearly within the rule laid down in State Bank vs. Conway, 13 Ark. 344; which has been repeatedly recognized as the settled practice of this court. Lefils Christian vs. Suggs, 15 Ark. 137; Jones vs. Gatlin 16 Ark. 35; Kinny & Goodrich vs. Heald, 17 Ark. 397. So far from observing this rule the appellant did not even except to the decision of the court in rendering final judgment. The record presents nothing for our consideration, and the judgment must be affirmed. .",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Compton,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Watkins & Gallagher, for appellant.",
      "Fowler & Stillwell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martin vs. Jackson, as ad.\nAn appeal from the judgment of the Circuit Court \u2014 without motion for a new trial, or exception taken to any ruling or decision of the court \u2014 presents no question for the adjudication of this court.\nAppeal from, Phillips Circuit Court.\nWatkins & Gallagher, for appellant.\nFowler & Stillwell, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0286-01",
  "first_page_order": 288,
  "last_page_order": 289
}