Coonrod v. Anderson
Supreme Court of Arkansas
APPEAL from Lee Circuit Court. '.Matthew T. Sanders, Judge. No bill of exceptions was necessary, as the cause was tried ¡upon an agreed statement of facts, and presented but one issue which appears on the face of the record. There being no bill of exceptions, there is nothing presented for adjudication, except whether the court had jurisdiction. 43 Ark., 391; 42 id., 488; 44 id., 411.
1Opinion of the CourtHughes, J.
This is an action of ejectment to recover possession of land claimed by the appellant. The appellee in his answer claimed to be the sole owner of the land. The case was tried by the court sitting as a jury upon an agreed statement of facts. There was judgment for the appellee. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, to which appellant excepted. The grounds of the motion are that the judgment was contrary to the law and the facts. No bill of exceptions appears in the record, and none was ever ■filed. There is a paper copied into the record marked “ filed ” by the clerk and subscribed…
2Cited by5 opinions
- First National Bank v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1916
- Sweet v. MyersSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1892
- Satterfield v. LoupeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
- Kinnanne v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1913
- Southwestern States Telephone Company v. BiggerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947