{
  "id": 1913440,
  "name": "Hilliard v. Hilliard",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hilliard v. Hilliard",
  "decision_date": "1889-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "283",
  "last_page": "284",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ark. 283"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "41 Md., 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1846000
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/41/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ind., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1423028
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/41/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 Penn. St., 238",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1053510
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/84/0238-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Mo., 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 B. Mon., 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "B. Mon.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark., 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900531
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/38/0388-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 2414,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.705,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0391513545034582e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5502861363732017
    },
    "sha256": "f835cd32edd79cf5726984eb18acde5e6b2fdd8635dd89edb4a860598f4ab440",
    "simhash": "1:73fbfe66ab166cd4",
    "word_count": 413
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:40.922971+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hilliard v. Hilliard."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam,\nThe order confirming the report of the commissioners appointed to allot dower, was the final judgment of . the Probate Court in the case; and the appeal from that judgment carried the whole cause to the Circuit Court for trial de novo. It was error, therefore, in the Circuit Court to confine the appellant to her exceptions to the manner of allotting dower. The judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded for a rehearing.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. B. Street, for appellant.",
      "D. H. Reynolds, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hilliard v. Hilliard.\nAppeal : From Probate Court: Allotment of dower.\nIn a proceeding in the Probate Court for the allotment of dower, an order confirming the report of commissioners appointed to make the allotment, is the-final judgment of the court, and an appeal therefrom carries the whole case to-the Circuit Court for trial de novo.\nAPPEAL from Chicot Circuit Court.\nC. D. Wood, Judge.\nThis was a proceeding begun in the Probate Court for the allotment of dower to Mrs. Caroline Hilliard in the land of her deceased husband. Commissioners were appointed to make the allotment, and their report was approved and confirmed by the court. From the order approving the report Mrs. Hilliard, appealed. In the Circuit Court she filed numerous exceptions-\u2018to the report, presenting questions which could only be determined by a trial de novo. Upon motion of the appellee, all 'these exceptions except one were stricken out on the ground that- they \u201cdid not relate to the order of the Probate Court appealed from.\u201d Mrs. Hilliard then filed her motion for a trial of the cause de novo, and the same was ordered to be stricken from the files. The court then proceeded to try the cause on the remaining exception which questioned only the manner of making the allotment, and gave judgment confirming the report. Mrs. Hilliard appealed, and contends that the approval of the commissioners\u2019 report was the final order of the Probate Court in the cause, and that the appeal therefrom carried up to the Circuit Court for trial the whole case.\nWm. B. Street, for appellant.\nThe order appointing the commissioners was not a final order, but the order confirming the report of the commissioners was final, and an appeal from the latter brings up the whole case for consideration. Mansf. Dig., secs. 1386, 1389, 1367; 38 Ark., 388; Freeman on^Jndg., sec. 28, p. 16, and sec. 30; 13 B. Mon., 48; 66 Mo., 4.63; 84 Penn. St., 238; 41 Ind., 398; 41 Md., 419.\nD. H. Reynolds, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0283-01",
  "first_page_order": 311,
  "last_page_order": 312
}