Brakefield v. Halpern
15 S.W. 190, 55 Ark. 265, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 124
Opinion
In his motion for a new trial appellant does not complain of the instruction given by the court. The only ground for a new trial set out in his motion is, the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. All other errprs, if any, were waived, and the only question presented for our consideration is, was the verdict sustained by the evidence ? The answer is, it was. It is unsatisfactory; but as there was some evidence to sustain it, we cannot disturb it, but, on the contrary, affirm the judgment of the court below.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Brakefield v. Halpern, 15 S.W. 190, 55 Ark. 265, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 124 (Ark. 1891).
15 S.W. 190 (Brakefield v. Halpern) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.
249 S.W.2d 973 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1952)
Starling v. Hamner
50 S.W.2d 612 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1932)
Cheairs v. McDermott Motor Co.
2 S.W.2d 1111 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1928)
Ringer v. Virgin Timber Co.
213 F. 1001 (E.D. Arkansas, 1914)
A. H. Andrews Co. v. Delight Special School District
128 S.W. 361 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Briggs v. Steele
121 S.W. 754 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1909)