{
  "id": 8727931,
  "name": "Lincoln vs. Hancock",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lincoln v. Hancock",
  "decision_date": "1844-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "703",
  "last_page": "704",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ark. 703"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Ark. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728385
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/1/0099-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 4189,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.313947448607103e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27159710855729424
    },
    "sha256": "26dd2a0db57256a6ccd354d6b44f40bb125d824aae9695729c85975461b94c29",
    "simhash": "1:bae0c630aedc2444",
    "word_count": 717
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:08.123138+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lincoln vs. Hancock."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "By the court,\nLacy J.\nThe objection taken to the want of a bond for costs, is waived by the defendants appearing and pleading to the action.\u2019 The exception put in to the reading of the depositions is unavailing, as it fails to point out any valid objection, which would have authorized their exclusion as testimony. The statute of limitations relied on, will not bar the action, for the proof shows the plaintiff to be a non-resident, which brings his case expressly within the saving of the act. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lacy J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hempstead, & Johnson, for plaintiff.",
      "Ashley & Watkins, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lincoln vs. Hancock.\nObjection for want of bond for costs is waived by the party appearing and pleading to the action.\nNon-residence of plaintiff, is good in avoidance of plea of the statute of limitations.\nAppeal, from justice of the peace determined in Pulaski in December, 1843, before the Hon. John J. Clendenin, one of the circuit judges. . Jacob B. Hancock sued Lemuel R. Lincoln upon anote for $\u00a143 75, dated 21 January, 1833, payable at the office of the Bank of the United States at Cincinnati, ninety days after date. Upon affidavit filed Lincoln moved to dismiss, because the plaintiff was nonresident, and had filed no bond for costs \u2014 bond ordered to be filed, which was done. He then moved on affidavit filed, to dismiss because the counsel prosecuting had no authority so to do \u2014 overruled. He then moved to dismiss, because the note sued on was made payable to Jacob B. Hancock or order, and he was summoned to appearand answer Jacob Hancock \u2014 overruled. He then pleaded the statute of limitations of this State, and of the State of Ohio, and there being no evidence that the plaintiff was a non-resident except that he now resided in Ohio, the justice decided for the defendant on the plea of the statute: and Hancock appealed. In the circuit court\u2019Lincoln moved to dismiss because the appeal was not filed until after the first day of the term: and because the appeal was from a judgment of nonsuit \u2014 overruled. He then moved to dismiss for want of bond for costs, on affidavit of plaintiff\u2019s non-residence. This was overruled, and he moved for a rule on plaintiff\u2019s attorney to share his authority for prosecuting \u2014 overruled upon showing of plaintiff\u2019s attorney. The record does not disclose the authority. He then plead the statutes of limitation of this State and of Ohio. To the first, there was issue, and the last a demurrer; and the case submitted to the court sitting as a jury, who found for Hancock, $43 75 debt, $27 75 damages, and all costs in that court and before the justice. Pending the trial, Lincoln objected to all the evidence offered by the plaintiff, and to save his objection, filed a bill of exceptions setting it out. The evidence consisted of the witnesses residing at Cincinnati, and proving'that Hancock had resided there ten years or more, then past, and had not within that time, nor before, to their knowledge and belief, resided in Arkansas. The depositions were taken and certified, under a regular commission, and notice to the defendant, and strictly confirmed in all respects to the requirements of the statute. Lincoln brought error.\nHempstead, & Johnson, for plaintiff.\nA party may before judgment, upon sufficient showing, require the attorney representing his adversary to show his authority. Tally vs. Russell, 1 Ark. 99. The attorney in this case made no response to the rule in writing, which he was bound to do for the future safety of defendant.\nAshley & Watkins, contra.\nThe bond that appears in the record, conforms to the statute and is sufficient; at all events, it is no part of the record, unless made so by exceptions.\n\u25a0 The judgment of the justice was a final judgment, and one from which an appeal would lie.\nThe objection that the showing of the attorney was insufficient, is nothing; because the evidence produced by him, does not appear on the record: and even if it did, the objection was waived by pleading over. The bill of exceptions does not purport to set out all the evidence at the trial.\nThe plaintiff in error abandoned his motion to dismiss, because after the motion overruled, he voluntarily appeared to the action, and the court by such appearance, obtained jurisdiction of the case."
  },
  "file_name": "0703-01",
  "first_page_order": 703,
  "last_page_order": 704
}