{ "id": 609237, "name": "Belding v. Sloan", "name_abbreviation": "Belding v. Sloan", "decision_date": "1898-03-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "175", "last_page": "176", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "65 Ark. 175" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "64 Ark. 395", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1907346 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/64/0395-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 Ark. 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1887711 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/48/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 Ark. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 Ark. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "35 Ark. 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 233, "char_count": 3828, "ocr_confidence": 0.473, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08, "percentile": 0.43512073483820873 }, "sha256": "05a8079d678bddf9374b3779bec457415ed6e627315b5aced30147f7c99fa32b", "simhash": "1:9f714aad704b3ce4", "word_count": 676 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:07.391732+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Belding v. Sloan." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Riddick, J.,\n(after stating the facts). We are of the opinion that the judgment of the circuit court should be affirmed. The statute of 1875, which permits actions pending-before justices of the peace to be changed to the courts of common pleas in certain counties named in the act, contains this provision: \u201cUpon a change of venue being taken as provided in the preceding section, neither party shall be permitted to file in said court any new or additional cause, or any new or additional counter-claim or set-off; nor shall either party be required to file any additional pleading, but said cause shall be tried upon its merits as though still in the justice\u2019s court.\u201d Acts 1875, p. 123, \u00a7 22. Under this statute, we think the circuit court properly ruled that Belding could not file in the court of common pleas a set off or counter-claim which he had not filed or offered to file before the justice of the peace.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Riddick, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Greaves & Martin, for appellant.", "Wood & Henderson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Belding v. Sloan.\nOpinion delivered March 26, 1898.\nCommon Pleas Court \u2014 Practice on Change cf Venue. \u2014 Under Acts 1875, p. 123, ? 22, permitting actions pending before justices of the peace to be changed to the court of common pleas in certain counties, it was provided that, upon a change of venue being taken, \u2018 \u2018neither party shall be permitted to file in said court any new or additional cause or any new or additional counter-claim or set-off, * * * but said cause shall be tried upon its merits as though still in the justice\u2019s court.\u201d Bold that the defendant could not file in the court of common pleas, nor in the circuit court on appeal, a set-off or counter-claim which he had not filed nor offered to file in the justice\u2019s court. (Page 176.)\nAppeal from Garland Circuit Court.\nAlexander M. Dueeie, Judge.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThe appellee, Sloan, brought an action upon an account against appellant, Belding, before a justice of the peace of Garland county. Upon the day set for trial the parties appeared, and, on motion of Belding, \u201ca change of venue\u201d was taken to the court of common pleas of said county. When the case was called for trial in that court, Belding offered to file a set-off and also a counter-claim against the plaintiff, Sloan, but the court refused to permit him to do so. On the appeal to the circuit court, Belding again offered to file his set off and counter-claim, but the court refused his request, on the ground that he should have filed them before the justice of the peace. Upon a trial there was a finding and judgment against Belding, from which judgment he appealed.\nGreaves & Martin, for appellant.\nThe act.of the legislature establishing the court of common pleas in Garland county prohibits the filing of any \u201cnew\u201d or \u201cadditional\u201d defense in the court of common pleas, on a change of venue from justice court. This, however, does not apply to a case where no defense or counter-claim was filed in justice court. In such ease, the defendant is at liberty to file his counter-claim in the common pleas court. Acts of 1875, p. 123, \u00a7\u00a7 21, 22, 18 and 4. For proper definition and construction of \u201cnew\u201d and \u201cadditional,\u201d see Century Diet. \u201cNew,\u201d (5), (11), and (22); Rapalje & Lawrence\u2019s Law Diet. \u201cNew and Improved;\u201d Anderson\u2019s Diet, of Law, \u201cNew;\u201d 16 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 489; 1 ib. (2 Ed.) 608; Cent. Diet.; Rap. & Lawr. Law Diet., Anderson\u2019s Diet. Law, words, \u201cAddition\u201d and \u201cAdditional.\u2019 This court has construed a statute similar to the one at bar, in the manner for which we contend here. Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 4447; 35 Ark. 448; 44 Ark. 376; 46 Ark. 259; Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 1124; 48 Ark. 349; 64 Ark. 395.\nWood & Henderson, for appellee.\nThe defendant failed to file his counter-claim in the justice court, and it cannot be filed in the court of common pleas. Acts 1875, p. 127, \u00a7\u00a7 18, 20 and 22; 35 Ark. 448; 44 Ark. 376; 46 Ark. 259; 48 Ark. 349." }, "file_name": "0175-01", "first_page_order": 191, "last_page_order": 192 }