Eddy Hotel Co. v. Ford

119 S.W. 270, 90 Ark. 393, 1909 Ark. LEXIS 468
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided May 10, 1909·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Battdr, J.

The appellant moved for a new trial on three grounds:

“First. Because the verdict was not according to law.

“Second. Because the verdict was not according to the evidence.

“Third. Because the verdict was contrary to the law and evidence.”

It is evident that the determination of the questions presented to us for decision depends upon the evidence adduced in the trial of this cause. With no aid or information except that furnished by the abstract of appellant we are unable to do so, the abstract containing a very small portion of the evidence.

Judgment is affirmed on account of the non-compliance with the rules of this court.

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

Eddy Hotel Co. v. Ford, 119 S.W. 270, 90 Ark. 393, 1909 Ark. LEXIS 468 (Ark. 1909).

119 S.W. 270 (Eddy Hotel Co. v. Ford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Norden v. Devore
184 S.W.2d 585 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1945)
Poinsett Gin Company v. McCoy
172 S.W.2d 19 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1943)
American Railway Express Co. v. Hammock
242 S.W. 565 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1922)
Queen of Arkansas Insurance v. Public School District No. 44
140 S.W. 135 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Diggs v. Diggs
129 S.W. 793 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)