{
  "id": 8726961,
  "name": "Sawin & Sickles v. Izard Bros. & Prewitt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sawin v. Izard Bros.",
  "decision_date": "1870-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "371",
  "last_page": "372",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ark. 371"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 1686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4483800418576272e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6545748420081634
    },
    "sha256": "4ab2c58fa6243047000f71114c05a4b948b56e851263c6f5f9bea259c8d84ad2",
    "simhash": "1:89fc9e137b94e5e6",
    "word_count": 278
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:12.742099+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sawin & Sickles v. Izard Bros. & Prewitt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HARRISON, J.\nIzard Bros. & Prewitt brought five suits, on due bills, against Sawin & Sickles, and recovered judgment on each. The defendants appealed to the circuit court, where the suits were consolidated, and the plaintiffs again recovered judgment. The defendants then appealed to this court. Ho questions of law were reserved at the trial, and the execution of the due bills was the only point in controversy. It is unnecessary to set out the evidence; to our mind it is conclusive, and if less satisfactory, or even doubtful, the finding of the court would not \u25a0be disturbed, unless it was so obviously against the weight of \u25a0evidence as to be palpably unjust.\nThe defendants further claimed a new trial, because the \u25a0court, whilst sitting as a jury, after the plaintiffs\u2019 witnesses had been examined, and the defendant, Sawin, had testified for defendants, but before Mitchell, another .of their witnesses, sworn at the same time with Sawin, was called, remarked that the court was satisfied that the due bills were executed by the 'defendants.\nIt does not appear that the remark was excepted to at the time it was made, and the witness was not introduced or \u25a0offered. But we are unable to conceive how such a remark \u25a0could have prejudiced the defendants, or to regard the objection otherwise than frivolous.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HARRISON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown Sp Lyles, for appellant.",
      "Watkins Bose, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sawin & Sickles v. Izard Bros. & Prewitt.\nPractice \u2014 When finding reversed. \u2014 The finding of the courtJ>elow will not be disturbed, unless it is so obviously against the weight of evidence aa to be palpably unjust.\nAppeal from St. Francis Circuit Court.\nHon. \u00a5m. Story, Circuit Judge.\nBrown Sp Lyles, for appellant.\nWatkins Bose, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0371-01",
  "first_page_order": 387,
  "last_page_order": 388
}