Bassham v. Railway Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Bassham v. Railway Co.

24 S.W. 1071, 58 Ark. 399, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 109

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 27, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 S.W. 1071 (Bassham v. Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bassham v. Railway Co., 24 S.W. 1071, 58 Ark. 399, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 109 (Ark. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). There is nothing in the record proper to show error in the judgment of the circuit court. The record recites that the court found from the ‘1 pleadings and the evidence in the cause.” There was no motion for new trial, no bill of exceptions, no record of the evidence, no agreed statement of facts certified by the judge as the evidence upon which the court based its findings and judgment — -none of the methods required by numerous decisions of this court for preserving and bringing before us matters dehors the record. The presumption, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, is in favor of the judgment. McStea v. Mason, 27 Ark. 395 ; Worthington v. Welch, 27 id. 464 ; Fort Smith v. Yantis, 35 id. 438 ; Turner v. Collier, 37 id. 528 ; State v. Johnson, 38 id. 568 ; Wigley v. State, 41 id. 225 ; Bell v. Welch, 38 id. 139 ; Reid v. Hart, 45 id. 41 ; Riggan v. Wolf, 53 id. 537 ; Newton v. Askew, 53 id. 476 ; St. Francis County v. Lee County, 46 id. 67 ; Hershy v. Baer, 45 id. 240 ; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Trustees, 91 U. S. 130.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). There is nothing in the record proper to show error in the judgment of the circuit court. The record recites that the court found from the ‘1 pleadings and the evidence in the cause.” There was no motion for new trial, no bill of exceptions, no record of the evidence, no agreed statement of facts certified by the judge as the evidence upon which the court based its findings and judgment — -none of the methods required by numerous decisions of this court for preserving and bringing before us matters dehors the record. The presumption, in the absence of a showing to the contrary, is in favor of the judgment. McStea v. Mason, 27 Ark. 395 ; Worthington v. Welch, 27 id. 464 ; Fort Smith v. Yantis, 35 id. 438 ; Turner v. Collier, 37 id. 528 ; State v. Johnson, 38 id. 568 ; Wigley v. State, 41 id. 225 ; Bell v. Welch, 38 id. 139 ; Reid v. Hart, 45 id. 41 ; Riggan v. Wolf, 53 id. 537 ; Newton v. Askew, 53 id. 476 ; St. Francis County v. Lee County, 46 id. 67 ; Hershy v. Baer, 45 id. 240 ; Baltimore &c. R. Co. v. Trustees, 91 U. S. 130.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 S.W. 1071, 58 Ark. 399, 1894 Ark. LEXIS 109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bassham-v-railway-co-ark-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack