Hardnicke, Guardian v. Cherry

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hardnicke, Guardian v. Cherry

190 S.W.2d 521, 209 Ark. 1009, 1946 Ark. LEXIS 524

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 21, 1946

Docket4-7857

StatusPublished

This text of 190 S.W.2d 521 (Hardnicke, Guardian v. Cherry) 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

Hardnicke, Guardian v. Cherry, 190 S.W.2d 521, 209 Ark. 1009, 1946 Ark. LEXIS 524 (Ark. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

The requirement that oral testimony be brought into the record by bill of exceptions, except where depositions are used, was not modified by Act 196 of 1945.

The testimony complained of in the pending motion to strike does not appear to have been brought into the record by bill of exceptions or depositions; therefore it was not properly preserved, and appellee’s motion to strike should be sustained. But that does not necessarily dispose of the case and the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled, with leave to the respondent to apply to the trial court for an order, nunc pro tunc, to make the record speak the truth if, as a matter of fact, the questioned testimony was properly preserved.

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

Per Curiam :

The requirement that oral testimony be brought into the record by bill of exceptions, except where depositions are used, was not modified by Act 196 of 1945.

The testimony complained of in the pending motion to strike does not appear to have been brought into the record by bill of exceptions or depositions; therefore it was not properly preserved, and appellee’s motion to strike should be sustained. But that does not necessarily dispose of the case and the motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled, with leave to the respondent to apply to the trial court for an order, nunc pro tunc, to make the record speak the truth if, as a matter of fact, the questioned testimony was properly preserved.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.W.2d 521, 209 Ark. 1009, 1946 Ark. LEXIS 524, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hardnicke-guardian-v-cherry-ark-1946.