{
  "id": 1152556,
  "name": "Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Co.",
  "decision_date": "1900-02-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "495",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "67 Ark. 493"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 49",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888730
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890499
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0302-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 Ark. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1327668
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/59/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ark. 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726148
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/33/0745-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ark. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1903656
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/60/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 S. W. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "70 la. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        8650001
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/70/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ind. 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1423110
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/41/0301-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Miss. 640",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Miss.",
      "case_ids": [
        11262431
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/miss/54/0640-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Mo. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        445449
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/72/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Mo. App. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        523464
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo-app/36/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 Ark. 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873809
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/35/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark. 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727096
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/19/0647-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 3147,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0189641752386648e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5443614666337689
    },
    "sha256": "3aef929c2bfa07ff895e00f949b8088f870108fc30bee28f6d1e319e81f6d42a",
    "simhash": "1:5f3dc139aafb7e58",
    "word_count": 541
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:13:54.689761+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Hughes, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) The appellant conlenls that this affidavit is not sufficient, or, rather, that it is really no affidavit. This affidavit was amendable. The record shows that evidence was heard in regard to the affidavit, which evidence does not appear in the bill of exceptions. If the court considered the affidavit insufficient, it may have treated it as amended, upon hearing the evidence.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Hughes, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Chas. W. Smith, Judge.",
      "Murry & Callaway, for appellants.",
      "PL. P. Smead and S. S. Powell, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Atkins v. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Company.\nOpinion delivered February 24, 1900.\nAppeal prom Justice\u2019s Court\u2014Appidavit \u2014Amendment.\u2014An informal affidavit for appeal from a justice\u2019s court may be amended in the circuit court, and if the record on appeal from the circuit court shows that evidence was heard in regard to the affidavit which does not appear in the bill of exceptions, and that the circuit court overruled a motion to dismiss, it will be presumed that the circuit court treated the affidavit as amended. (Page 495.)\nAppeal from Union Circuit Court.\nChas. W. Smith, Judge.\nstatement by the court.\n\u25a0Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Company brought replevin in justice court against A. S. Atkins and one Terrell, from whom Atkins purchased the goods in controversy. Upon a trial before a jury in the justice court, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant, Atkins, the case having been dismissed as to Terrell. Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Company attempted to appeal the case to the circuit court.\nIn the circuit coui\u2019t Atkins moved to dismiss the appeal, for want of the statutory affidavit. The court overruled the motion to dismiss, and Atkins\u2019 exceptions were noted. The following is a copy of the affidavit for an appeal, omitting the caption:\n\u201cWe, Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Company, do solemnly swear that the appeal taken by us in the above entitled cause is not taken for the purpose of delay, but that justibe may be done us, [Signed ] Johnson, Caruthers & Rand Co.\n\u201cI am one of the attorneys in this cause of action, and state that the plaintiffs are absent from the county. [Signed ]\n\u201cE. 0. Mahoney. '\n\u201cSubscribed and sworn to before me this the 3d day of December, 1896. \u201cG. M. Wright, J. P.\u201d\nAfter overruling the motion to dismiss, the court ordered the case to proceed to trial before a jury, who returned a verdict for plaintiff, after which judgment was rendered accordingly. The defendant prayed an appeal to this court, which was granted.\nMurry & Callaway, for appellants.\nThe statutory affidavit for appeal is a prerequisite to the granting of an appeal from a justice\u2019s court. 19 Ark. 647. Every affidavit must be signed by the affiant. The affidavit in this case is insufficient. 35 Ark. 214; 36 Mo. App. 419; 11 Paige, 173; 72 Mo. 370; 54 Miss. 640; 41 Ind. 301; 70 la. 386; 16 S. W. 337; Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7 2976.\nPL. P. Smead and S. S. Powell, for appellant.\nAn appeal from justice\u2019s court can not be dismissed for mere informality of the affidavit. 60 Ark. 524; Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7\u00a7 4437, 4438. An informal affidavit can be amended in the circuit court, and if no objection is taken to it there, none can be urged on appeal. 33 Ark. 745; 59 Ark. 177; 46 Ark. 302; 47 Ark. 49."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 509
}