Billingsley v. Adams

145 S.W. 190, 102 Ark. 511, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 84
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 4, 1912
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 145 S.W. 190 (Billingsley v. Adams) 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
Billingsley v. Adams, 145 S.W. 190, 102 Ark. 511, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 84 (Ark. 1912).

Opinion

McCulloch, C. J.

Appellee sued appellant on a promissory note before a justice of the peace, and recovered a judgment, from which an appeal was taken to the circuit court. At the first term of the circuit court there were no proceedings in the cause, except that on application of appellant the cause was continued to the next term; and at the next term appellee moved for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that no affidavit for appeal had been filed. Appellant offered to file a substituted affidavit, but the court denied the request on the ground that no affidavit had been filed with the justice of the peace, and dismissed the appeal. From that judgment an appeal to this court has been prosecuted.

The evidence heard by the court is not abstracted. Therefore, we must indulge the presumption that the court’s finding that no affidavit for appeal had ever been filed with the justice is sustained by sufficient evidence. The filing of an affidavit is prescribed by statute as a prerequisite to an appeal, and unless waived is ground for dismissal. Merrill v. Manees, 19 Ark. 647.

Appellee did not take any substantive steps in the case before moving for the dismissal of the appeal; and mere delay from one term to another, where appellant’s rights were not prejudiced by the delay, did not constitute a waiver of the omission to file the affidavit. When the appeal was dismissed for want of an affidavit, it was error to render judgment on the appeal bond. The judgment of the court in dismissing the appeal is affirmed, but the judgment on the bond is reversed and quashed.

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

Related

Arkansas Brick & Tile Co. v. Crabtree
290 S.W. 361 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1927)
Middleton v. Clardy
266 S.W. 263 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Helton v. Howe
258 S.W. 391 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1924)
Hale v. Road Improvement District No. 1
230 S.W. 279 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1921)
Laramore v. Radford
205 S.W. 884 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1918)
Heard v. McCabe
196 S.W. 917 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1917)
Armstrong v. Lawson
193 S.W. 258 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1917)
Lochridge Dry Goods Co. v. Daniels
171 S.W. 863 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1914)
Adams v. Billingsley
153 S.W. 1105 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
145 S.W. 190, 102 Ark. 511, 1912 Ark. LEXIS 84, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billingsley-v-adams-ark-1912.