{
  "id": 1900500,
  "name": "St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Murphy Bros.",
  "name_abbreviation": "St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Murphy Bros.",
  "decision_date": "1882-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "456",
  "last_page": "457",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ark. 456"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ark., 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1868263
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/21/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ark., 585",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1697,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.031324996443159e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42421507972086403
    },
    "sha256": "5863622e3fd00fd6196c7a28a29f7f958fc4d3b96f4276d4e825e1c4d3a053fc",
    "simhash": "1:3234a22961d47c23",
    "word_count": 298
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:01.048516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Murphy Bros."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "English, C. J.\nThe complaint in this case was loosely -drawn, and fancifully paragraphed, but substantially sets out a cause of action. Its formal defects were cured by the verdict.\nAppellant took a bill of exceptions, setting out the evidence and instructions, but making no reference to a motion for a new trial.\nAt the next term it applied to the court to cure this defect by a nunc pro tunc amendment of the bill of exceptions, which the court refused. No bill of exceptions was taken to show upon what evidence the court acted in refusing to sustain the application, and the presumption is in favor of the correctness of the ruling.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "English, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dodge & Johnson, for appellant:",
      "Williams & Battle, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "St. L., I. M. & S. Railway Co. v. Murphy Bros.\n1. PRACTICE: Bill of exceptions on overruling motion; presumption.\nWhen there is no hill of exceptions showing upon what evidence the Circuit Court sustained or overruled a motion, this court will presume that the court ruled correctly.\nAPPEAL from Ciarle Circuit Court.\nHon. H. B. Stuart, Circuit Judge.\nDodge & Johnson, for appellant:\n\u201cThe party objecting to the decision must except at the time, etc., and time may be given to reduce the exceptions to writing, but not beyond the succeeding term.\u201d Sec. 4694, Gantt\u2019s Digest.\nThe words (exceptions taken and noted) were written in the bill of exceptions, but the clerk failed to enter the motion for new trial.\nIt was the duty of the court to have granted the motion for nunc pro tunc order. The record should have been amended so as to speak the truth.\nWilliams & Battle, for appellee.\nThe motion for a new trial is not incorporated in bill of exceptions. 80 Ark., 585; 28 lb., 450; 35 lb., 536 ; Gantt\u2019s Hig., sec. 4698 ; 21 Ark., 286 ; 26 lb., 536."
  },
  "file_name": "0456-01",
  "first_page_order": 454,
  "last_page_order": 455
}