Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

48 Ark. 73

Wilson v. Stark

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1886

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1886-11-15

Hon. F. T. Vaughan, Judge. STATEMENT. Stark recovered judgment against, Wilson before a justice-of the peace, and Wilson asked and was granted an appeal to the circuit court, and filed his affidavit and bond for appeal, but the affidavit was not signed by him, nor was there any jurat of the justice to it.. The papers and transcript from the justice’s docket were not filed in the circuit court within the time required by the statute.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1937

8 state decisions

40188618901900191019201930decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1OPINION.

Cockrill, C. J.

¶2When an affidavit for an appeal from a judgment of a justice of the peace is filed, the judgment superseded and the appeal not perfected until the time prescribed by the statute has expired {Mansf. Dig , sec. £139), and a satisfactory excuse is not given for the delay, the judgment of the justice may be affirmed by the circuit court and judgment rendered against the sureties in the appeal bond. Smith v. Allen, 31 Ark, 268; McGehee v.Carroll, ib., 558; Hughes v. Wheat,32 ib., 292: Whittaker v.'Tracy, 41 ib., 259.

¶3II. It is the appellant’s duty in such a case to see that his appeal is perfected in time, and if he relies on the justice of the peace, cr upon his attorney, to see to it for him, and it is neglected, the default comes through his own want of diligence. Cases supra.

¶4III. The fact that an order has been made in the case previous to the filing of the motion to affirm, does not deprive the court of the power to exercise its discretion to grant the prayer of the motion.

¶5The court should regard the general appearance of an appellee to the cause as a waiver of the delay; but the appearance in this cause was solely for the purpose of dismissing the appeal, and could not be so construed. It is true his first motion was to dismiss for want of an affidavit for appeal, and when this was denied it was renewed to dismiss or affirm for delay in prosecution, but neither effort recognized the appellant’s standing in court.

¶6"We cannot say there was an abuse of official discretion, and the judgment is affirmed.

/48/ark/73 · .json · Public domain