{
  "id": 1513786,
  "name": "Eddy Hotel Company v. Ford",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eddy Hotel Co. v. Ford",
  "decision_date": "1909-05-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "393",
  "last_page": "394",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "90 Ark. 393"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Ark. 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 151,
    "char_count": 1698,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.643,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7316776160296886e-07,
      "percentile": 0.831169500615673
    },
    "sha256": "d29ecf2575e689e1435a9c644b6c1ea610ead996b71a71a3c64ad29923cb4a55",
    "simhash": "1:36e5ef4e830d0049",
    "word_count": 290
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:13:08.486087+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eddy Hotel Company v. Ford."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battdr, J.\nThe appellant moved for a new trial on three grounds:\n\u201cFirst. Because the verdict was not according to law.\n\u201cSecond. Because the verdict was not according to the evidence.\n\u201cThird. Because the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence.\u201d\nIt is evident that the determination of the questions presented to us for decision depends upon the evidence adduced in the trial of this cause. With no aid or information except that furnished by the abstract of appellant we are unable to do so, the abstract containing a very small portion of the evidence.\nJudgment is affirmed on account of the non-compliance with the rules of this court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battdr, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rector & Sazvyer, for appellant.",
      "C. Floyd Huff, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Eddy Hotel Company v. Ford.\nOpinion delivered May 10, 1909.\nAppeae and error \u2014 insufficiency of abstract. \u2014 Where appellant relies for reversal upon the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, and fails to set out the evidence in his abstract, the cause will be affirmed.\nAppeal from Garland Circuit Court; William H. Evans, Judge;\naffirmed.\nRector & Sazvyer, for appellant.\n1. It was error to sustain the lien on separate buildings on different lots for separate work, when the lien filed shows a running account and a balance due, and was a lien on all the buildings. 63 Ark. 369.\n2. It was error to permit the verdict to stand when it is clearly shown that plaintiff failed to comply with his contract in furnishing satisfactory heating plant.\nC. Floyd Huff, for appellee.\n1. Case of 63 Ark. 369, has no application \u2014 the facts are different.\n2. The heating plant\u2019s defects or faults and the credit therefor were questions of fact for the jury, and their finding is sustained by the evidence.\n3. No .objections were made to the evidence."
  },
  "file_name": "0393-01",
  "first_page_order": 417,
  "last_page_order": 418
}