{
  "id": 8721856,
  "name": "Springfield and Memphis Railroad Co. v. Lambert",
  "name_abbreviation": "Springfield & Memphis Railroad v. Lambert",
  "decision_date": "1883-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "121",
  "last_page": "122",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 Ark. 121"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 Ark., 14",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726467
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/6/0014-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark., 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/10/0588-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 1809,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.499,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.024083611883999e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46505838757394735
    },
    "sha256": "58af751ddcb6acd7844144e5c8274abe6bfb78944daf9daee4783d31e6806ffe",
    "simhash": "1:0cc9093cf943589d",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:26:49.915053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Springfield and Memphis Railroad Co. v. Lambert"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nWitnesses were summoned on behalf of the defendants, in two civil cases pending in Lawrence Circuit Court, wherein the railroad company was plaintiff. They attended, to testify, and proved up their attendance in eaich case. The cases were determined against the company. The clerk taxed their ferriage and per diem allowance in both cases. The company moved the court for a retaxation of costs, insisting that the witnesses wrere entitled to \u2022claim their attendance in one case only. But the Circuit-Court decided otherwise.\nSections 39 and 40 of the fees act of February 25, 1875, provide that witnesses shall be allowed compensation for each day\u2019s attendance before the Circuit Court in \u2022civil and criminal cases, $1.50 ; but in criminal cases, when the costs are paid by the county, they shall be allowed pay in but one case, no matter in how manji cases they are \u2022summoned or called upon to testify. But for this exception, the county would be liable, when the cases are determined adversely to the State, for their fees in all the criminal cases, where they have attended in obedience to a subpoena, as decided in Pulaski County v. Downer, 10 Ark., 588.\nThe statute contains no exceptions as to double pay in civil causes, and the courts can make none, as they have no power to legislate. Erwin v. Turner, 6 Ark., 14; State Bank v. Morris, 13 Ib., 291; Pryor v. Ryburn, 16 Ib., 671; Maclin v. Thompson, 17 Ib., 199; Smith v. Macon, 20 Ib., 17; Bennett v. Worthington, 24, Ib., 487.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brb, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Springfield and Memphis Railroad Co. v. Lambert\nFeus: Witnesses in several cases.\nIn civil cases -witnesses are entitled to their ferriage and per diem in every case in which they are summoned, however numerous.\nAPPEAL from Lawrence Circuit Court.\nHon. R. H. Powell, Circuit Judge.\nBrb, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0121-01",
  "first_page_order": 119,
  "last_page_order": 120
}