Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

72 Ark. 185

Simpson v. Talbot

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 6, 1904

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1904-02-06

John M. Elliott, Chancellor. No sufficient evidence of adverse possession, was offered. 43 Ark. 81; 57 Ark. 97; 27 Ark. 77; 30 Ark. 640. Appellees cannot redeem. 71 S. W. 255. Appellant wás not guilty of laches. 152 U. S. 413; 173 U. S. 131; hi 111. 328; 24 S. W. 638. Mere delay, not operating to the prejudice of the adverse party, is immáterial. 14 Ga. 238; 136 Mass. 273 ; 152 Mo. 398. The facts upon which a decree is amenable nunc pro tunc should be of record. 21 Am. & Eng.

Relies on Casteel v. Casteel · Hershy v. Baer · King v. Clay

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1904-02-06

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently December 1962

13 state decisions

401904191019201930194019501960decided

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 →

Battle, J.

¶1On the 24th of March, 1895, John H. Talbot & Co. brought suit, in-the Jefferson chancery court, against W. T. Simpson and others to foreclose a mortgage upon certain lands. A decree foreclosing the mortgage was rendered. After the expiration of the term at which it ,was rendered, the chancery court amended it so as to show the evidence upon which the cause was heard. The record fails to show that notice of the application for the amendment was given, or that any application was made, or that the parties-appeared at the time the decree was corrected. According to the amendment, all the evidence upon which the cause was heard and the decree was rendered does not appear in the record in this court.

¶2The chancery court had the authority to amend the record of its decree at a subsequent term, so as to make it speak the truth, but it cannot do so without notice first given to the party against whom it is made. Martin v. State Bank, 20 Ark. 636; Alexander v. Stewart, 23 Ark. 18; King v. Clay, 34 Ark. 300. But, the record being silent, the presumption is that notice was given. Brownlee v. Davidson, 28 Neb. 788, 789.

¶3The record here failing to show that it contains all the evidence upon which the cause was heard, the presumption is that the decree is correct. Casteel v. Casteel, 38 Ark. 477; Hershy v. Baer, 45 Ark. 240; Carpenter v. Ellenbrook. 58 Ark. 134, 23 S. W. 792.

¶4Decree affirmed.

/72/ark/185 · .json · Public domain