Terral v. Bennett

144 S.W.2d 722, 201 Ark. 347, 1940 Ark. LEXIS 347
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 11, 1940
Docket4-6033
StatusPublished

This text of 144 S.W.2d 722 (Terral v. Bennett) 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
Terral v. Bennett, 144 S.W.2d 722, 201 Ark. 347, 1940 Ark. LEXIS 347 (Ark. 1940).

Opinion

Smith, J.

The questions discussed in appellant’s brief are such only as could be brought to our attention for decision by a bill of exceptions.

. A purported bill of exceptions appears in the record which was not presented to nor approved and signed by the presiding judge. It is stated by appellant, who is, himself, an attorney, that he had depended upon one of the attorneys who represents him in this appeal and has filed a brief in his behalf to attend to the presentation of the bill of exceptions to the presiding judge. But, even so, this does not dispense with the requirements of the law and the rules of this court that bills of exceptions must be presented to the presiding judge for approval within the time allowed by the trial court for that purpose. The purported bill of exceptions was never presented to the trial judge at any time.

There is no bill of exceptions by bystanders, nor was there occasion for one, as the trial judge did not fail or refuse to sign and approve the bill of exceptions appearing in the transcript. Sections 1546 and 1547, Pope’s Digest.

As no error appears upon the face of the record, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered.

Humphbeys and Mehafey, JJ., dissent.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
144 S.W.2d 722, 201 Ark. 347, 1940 Ark. LEXIS 347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terral-v-bennett-ark-1940.