Bradley v. Harkey
| Decision Date | 26 May 1894 |
| Citation | 26 S.W. 827,59 Ark. 178 |
| Parties | BRADLEY v. HARKEY |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Error to Pope Circuit Court, JEREMIAH G. WALLACE, Judge.
Judgment affirmed.
Dan B. Granger for appellants.
Jeff Davis for appellee.
1. There is nothing before this court to decide. There is no bill of exceptions. There is what purports to be the findings of the court copied in the transcript, but it is no part of the record. 55 Ark. 353; 28 id. 450; 30 id. 585; 43 id. 393; 26 id. 479, 662, 536; 46 id. 21; 13 id. 316; 21 id. 398, 404; 27 id. 464; 21 id. 454; 17 id. 473; 32 id. 154; 3 id. 146.
2. Equitable relief may be administered in actions at law. 51 Ark. 235.
This action was brought by appellees against the appellants in the Pope circuit court, on the law side thereof. The parties waived a jury, and the issues in the cause were tried by the court. Judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendants; and an appeal was taken by the defendants, but no bill of exceptions was filed. An instrument of writing, signed by the judge, appears in the transcript, which purports to be conclusions of law and facts found by the court. The findings of facts by the court are also set out in the judgment, as in Smith v. Hollis, 46 Ark. 17, but they show no error. Appellants rely for reversal on the writing purporting to be conclusions of law and facts found by the court. Was it a part of the record?
It has been held by this court that, without a bill of exceptions, the conclusions of law found by the court are no part of the record. Hall v. Bonville, 36 Ark. 491. For the same reason the findings of facts by the court should be brought on record by a bill of exceptions, both being required of the court, sitting as a jury, by the same statute. Mansfield's Digest, sec. 5149. There is no entry on the record showing the filing of any conclusions of law and fact in this case, and if any were filed, they were not in any way made a part of the judgment.
It follows that we cannot consider the writing relied on by appellants as the conclusions of law and facts found by the court.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Hamby
...a part of the record proper. Authorities supra. The agreed statement of facts does not fall within this class. 2 Ark. 14; 36 Ark. 491; 59 Ark. 178; 55 Ark. 2 Th. Trials, § 2781; Freeman, Judg., 3d Ed. § 2; 16 Pet. (U. S.) 176; 60 Ark. 250; 21 Ark. 399; 21 Ark. 404. No special findings were ......
-
Sizer v. Midland Valley Railroad Company
...averments of the complaint. 53 Ark. 476; 14 S.W. 670-1. 2. The conclusions of fact and of law are also part of the record in this case. 59 Ark. 178; 65 Id. 14; 45 S.W. 473, 1. 3. The lex loci contractus governs as to the law of the contract, Oklahoma, but the place of performance, Arkansas,......
-
Morrison v. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad Co.
...upon the record by a bill of exceptions, and no bill of exceptions was filed. 2 Ark. 14; 9 Ark. 67; 36 Ark. 492; 38 Ark. 304; id. 568; 59 Ark. 178; Ark. 483; id. 221; 65 Ark. 330; 70 Ark. 364. An entry of facts in the record will not be considered unless incorporated regularly in a bill of ......
-
Sewell v. Harkey
... ... 92, 64 S.W.2d 91, this court said: ... "The statute contemplates that these findings shall be ... made upon the trial, or during it, and a request made ... thirteen days after the trial was not in apt time." ... To the ... same effect is the opinion in the case of Bradley v ... Harkey, 59 Ark. 178, 26 S.W. 827, where it was said: ... "An instrument of writing, signed by the judge, appears ... in the transcript, which purports to be conclusions of law ... and facts found by the court ... Appellants rely for ... reversal on the writing purporting to be ... ...