{
  "id": 1524389,
  "name": "Cagle v. Gray",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cagle v. Gray",
  "decision_date": "1907-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "597",
  "last_page": "598",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ark. 597"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "83 Ark. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1527132
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/83/0424-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1931,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.661,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32693701447458906
    },
    "sha256": "a474e93bb3095480d11e653861c66f4f617b2b11b72e87cc85c5a5cda269503f",
    "simhash": "1:8926a4d37d95a14f",
    "word_count": 330
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:07:28.525494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cagle v. Gray."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe clerk\u2019s certificate is as follows:\n\u201cI, F. A. Garrett, clerk of the Pulaski Chancery Court, do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing 34 pages of within written matter contains a true, accurate and complete transcript of all the pleadings, papers, files and entries of proceedings in the action named in the caption (except certain testimony which is not on file in my office in said cause, and which by consent of counsel is omitted from this record), as hath appeared by comparing the same with the originals thereof now on file and of record in my office,\u201d etc.\nIn Beecher v. Beecher, 83 Ark. 424, it was said: \u201cIt is no part of the clerk\u2019s duty to certify to oral testimony, and his certificate to it necessarily goes for naught.\u201d This certificate in a negative way reaches the same end sought to be reached by the clerk\u2019s certificate in the Beecher case, and is equally ineffectual.\nThe appellee files a motion to strike out so much of the clerk\u2019s certificate as goes beyond his' province, but the court does not in that way exercise authority over the clerk\u2019s certificate.\nThe objectionable part is surplusage, and neither adds to nor takes from his certificate what is proper to be certified, and it is unnecessary to recommit it to him for a prooer certificate, and. the motion is overruled.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Vaughan & Vaughan, for appellant.",
      "Appellee pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cagle v. Gray.\nOpinion delivered December 16, 1907.\nAppeal \u2014 clerk's certificate to transcript \u2014 surplusage.\u2014The clerk of the chancery court is not authorized to certify that a transcript contains all the papers filed in the action named, except certain testimony which is not on file in his office; but so much of his certificate as relates to the testimony not on file will be treated as surplusage.\nAppeal from. Pulaski Chancery Court; Jesse C. PI art, Chancellor ;\nmotion denied.'\nMotion to strike out a portion of the clerk\u2019s certificate to the record.\nVaughan & Vaughan, for appellant.\nAppellee pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0597-01",
  "first_page_order": 619,
  "last_page_order": 620
}