{
  "id": 1650384,
  "name": "Martin v. Martin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1954-04-26",
  "docket_number": "5-341",
  "first_page": "564",
  "last_page": "565",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "223 Ark. 564"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "267 S.W.2d 320"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 775",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659995
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0775-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 2785,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.062234902498176536
    },
    "sha256": "96758caa405a37bd7ffc32f67ccee77a1098de8dd7278d55cf706af7e010761c",
    "simhash": "1:d2ca8d04dba2fa0a",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:33.600099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin v. Martin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "J. Seaborn Holt, J.\nAppellee, Vivian Martin, brought suit against her brother, Harry Martin, and in her complaint alleged, in effect, and prayed, that Harry Martin be declared to be holding legal title to certain property (sis lots), appellee\u2019s residence in the town of Trumann, as a trustee of a resulting trust, and further prayed that an alleged partnership between them, involving business property in the town of Trumann and farm land in Poinsett County, be dissolved and the partnership property partitioned.\nAppellant answered with a general denial and affirmatively pleaded the defense of laches, estoppel and statute of frauds. In a cross complaint, appellant alleged that he \u201chas an absolute interest in all of said property as the sole owner thereof,\u201d etc. Thereafter, appellee answered appellant\u2019s cross complaint and denied \u201ceach and every allegation\u201d therein.\nVoluminous testimony was taken in this case before the trial court. There were findings and a decree in favor of appellee. The case is here on direct appeal of appellant and cross-appeal of appellee.\nAt the outset, we are met with an order of this court, (on appellee\u2019s motion) entered on March 8, 1954, striking the Bill of Exceptions in this case. This being-true, we are limited to a consideration of what appears on the face of the record. We find no error apparent on the face of the record presented.\nOur rule is well established that evidence at the trial cannot be considered by this court on appeal without a proper bill of exceptions and in such circumstances, we must presume that the absent evidence was sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings and decree. McKinney v. Caldwell, Executor, 220 Ark. 775, 250 S. W. 2d 117 and the decree of April 19, 1954 of Oather S. Blackburn, et al. v. Abraham Ford, ante, page 524.\nOn her cross-appeal, appellee \u201cquestions that part of the decree which found appellant to have an equal interest in the original capital of the partnership,\u201d * * *. \u201cShe does not question the findings of fact, but contends that the Chancellor improperly applied the law to these facts.\u201d We find no merit to this contention for the reason that the court\u2019s decree here, \u2014which was a part of the record proper,' \u2014determined this issue along with all others, based on conflicting facts on matters joined by the pleadings above. These conflicting-facts were contained in the absent bill of exceptions and must be presumed to support the findings and decree, therefore, appellee is in the same position on her cross-appeal as appellant on his direct appeal.\nAccordingly, the decree is affirmed on both direct and cross-appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "J. Seaborn Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "S. L. Richardson, for appellant.",
      "Frierson, Walker S Snellgrove, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martin v. Martin.\n5-341\n267 S. W. 2d 320\nOpinion delivered April 26, 1954.\nS. L. Richardson, for appellant.\nFrierson, Walker S Snellgrove, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0564-01",
  "first_page_order": 586,
  "last_page_order": 587
}