Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson

168 S.W. 128, 113 Ark. 237, 1914 Ark. LEXIS 506

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJune 1, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 168 S.W. 128 (Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson) 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

Incorporated Town of Corning v. Thompson, 168 S.W. 128, 113 Ark. 237, 1914 Ark. LEXIS 506 (Ark. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). Section 2421 of Kirby’s Digest, provides: “The application for a new trial must be made at the same term at which the verdict ■is rendered, unless the judgment is postponed to another term, in which case it may be made at any time before judgment. ’ ’

This statute contemplates that the motion for a new trial shall be made at the same term of the court at which the verdict is rendered, and that it shall be acted upon at that term unless the judgment is postponed to another term. In the present case, judgment was entered at the term of the court at which the trial was had, and that term of the court adjourned without the court setting aside the judgment. This judgment, therefore, became final, and the court had no power to set the same aside at the succeeding term.

The order of the court continuing the cause after the motion for a new trial was filed did not have the effect to set -aside the judgment. Under the statute, when the appellee filed his motion for a new trial, the court might have postponed entering the judgment until another term of the court, and continued the hearing on the motion, and that woiild have operated as a continuance of the cause. In that case the appellee might have had his motion for a new trial passed on at the subsequent term, but this was not done, and therefore the appellee lost the benefit of his motion for a new trial when the term of the court at which his trial was had and judgment entered was adjourned until court in course.

Where judgment is entered and becomes final by adjournment of the term of court during which the verdict was rendered, it can not be opened up and a new trial granted at any subsequent term. See Ayers v. Anderson-Tully Co., 89 Ark. 160.

It follows that the court erred in entering a judgment setting aside the verdict and discharging the defendant, and exonerating the bondsmen, and entering a judgment for costs against the appellant. The judgment is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the application for a new trial.

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

Wood, J.,

(after stating the facts). Section 2421 of Kirby’s Digest, provides: “The application for a new trial must be made at the same term at which the verdict ■is rendered, unless the judgment is postponed to another term, in which case it may be made at any time before judgment. ’ ’

This statute contemplates that the motion for a new trial shall be made at the same term of the court at which the verdict is rendered, and that it shall be acted upon at that term unless the judgment is postponed to another term. In the present case, judgment was entered at the term of the court at which the trial was had, and that term of the court adjourned without the court setting aside the judgment. This judgment, therefore, became final, and the court had no power to set the same aside at the succeeding term.

The order of the court continuing the cause after the motion for a new trial was filed did not have the effect to set -aside the judgment. Under the statute, when the appellee filed his motion for a new trial, the court might have postponed entering the judgment until another term of the court, and continued the hearing on the motion, and that woiild have operated as a continuance of the cause. In that case the appellee might have had his motion for a new trial passed on at the subsequent term, but this was not done, and therefore the appellee lost the benefit of his motion for a new trial when the term of the court at which his trial was had and judgment entered was adjourned until court in course.

Where judgment is entered and becomes final by adjournment of the term of court during which the verdict was rendered, it can not be opened up and a new trial granted at any subsequent term. See Ayers v. Anderson-Tully Co., 89 Ark. 160.

It follows that the court erred in entering a judgment setting aside the verdict and discharging the defendant, and exonerating the bondsmen, and entering a judgment for costs against the appellant. The judgment is therefore reversed and remanded, with directions to dismiss the application for a new trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 S.W. 128, 113 Ark. 237, 1914 Ark. LEXIS 506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/incorporated-town-of-corning-v-thompson-ark-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack