Tucker v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 05 December 1903 |
| Citation | 77 S.W. 902,72 Ark. 21 |
| Parties | TUCKER v. HAWKINS |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Monroe Chancery Court JNO. M. ELLIOTT, Chancellor.
Affirmed.
Decree affirmed.
J. M Battle, for appellants.
The complaint sets up a cause of action, and the evidence fully sustains its allegations. The defendant had the right to return the property and be discharged from liability, no damages being assessed for detention of the property. 20 Ark 283; 14 Ark. 427; 50 Ark. 303. Judgment in replevin must be in the alternative, but it is not optional with either party to demand a money satisfaction of the judgment. Sand. & H Dig., § 6398; 50 Ark. 303; 37 Ark. 550. Without special authority, an attorney cannot compromise his client's case or take a decree against him by consent. 32 Ark. 74; Ib 346. The judgment on the bond was erroneous. 56 Ark. 521.
M. J. Manning and J. P. Lee, for appellees.
The findings of the chancellor are conclusive. In the absence of a bill of exceptions showing all the evidence, where oral evidence was taken at a trial in chancery, it will be presumed that there was evidence to sustain the findings of the chancellor. 38 Ark. 477; 67 Ark. 289; 25 Ark. 503; 46 Ark. 17; 30 Ark. 527; 67 Ark. 289; 64 Ark. 609.
About the 11th day of December, 1897, Calvin Tucker, now deceased, and D. L. McCright instituted a suit in the Monroe chancery court, against W. M. Hawkins, and T. H. Jackson and W. E. Williams, sheriffs, respectively, of Monroe and St. Francis counties. On the 24th of October, 1899, the defendants recovered a decree against the plaintiffs. The decree recites that plaintiffs, to sustain their complaint, introduced a judgment in a certain action of replevin, and the execution that was issued thereon, and the depositions of S. B. Kelly, M. H. Vaughan, T. L. Vaughan, and W. T. Tucker; and the defendant Hawkins, to sustain his answer, introduced the depositions and statements of W. M. Hawkins, M. J. Manning, J. P. Lee, W. T. Bonner, E. A. M. Webb and J. E. Lentz, and exhibits, and the oral testimony of J. S. Thomas and T. H. Jackson. The oral testimony was not in any manner made a part of the record. On the 13th day of February, 1902, the plaintiffs, by motion for a nunc pro tunc order, attempted to have the oral testimony made a part of the record; and the motion was denied.
When the record does not contain all the evidence adduced at the hearing of a cause, McKinney v. Demby, 44 Ark. 74; Railway Company v. Amos, 54 Ark. 159, 15 S.W. 362.
The record of the decree in this case speaks the truth. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Red Bud Realty Company v. South
...the evidence in the case, the court will presume that there was sufficient evidence to support the findings of the chancellor. 70 Ark. 127; 72 Ark. 21; 77 Ark. 195; 38 Ark. 477; 36 Ark. 484; Ark. 287. The burden is upon appellant to show that the finding of the chancellor was clearly agains......
-
Crenshaw v. State
...90 Ark. 198; 85 Ark. 213. The bill of exceptions fails to show upon what evidence the judgment of the circuit court was based. 70 Ark. 127; 72 Ark. 21; 74 Ark. 195; Ark. 185. But, if it can be determined from the bill of exceptions what the evidence was, the judgment should be affirmed. 67 ......
-
Lowe v. Hart
...The court did not err in refusing to enter the nunc pro tunc order. A nunc pro tunc order does not create, but states what has been done. 72 Ark. 21; 51 Ark. 224; 55 Ark. 30. of amendments to the record by nunc pro tunc orders, long after the term, addresses itself to the sound discretion o......
-
Holman v. Lowrance
...Dan W. Jones and Walker Danaher, for appellee. The burden is upon appellant to show that the proof does not sustain the court's rulings. 72 Ark. 21; 79 Ark. 263; Ark. 126, 54 Ark. 159; 45 Ark. 240; 44 Ark. 74; 40 Ark. 185; 94 Ark. 115. The question of notice can be determined only by the re......