Case Name: Shackleford v. Ford
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-01-10
Citations: 172 Ark. 527
Docket Number: 
Parties: Shackleford v. Ford.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 172
Pages: 527–530

Head Matter:
Shackleford v. Ford.
Opinion delivered January 10, 1927.
G. W. Hendricks, for appellant.
E. L. Westbrooke, Jr., and E. L. Westbrooke, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). This action was commenced as a summary proceeding under the statute to recover money which the defendant, as an attorney, had collected for the plaintiff and failed to pay the same over on demand. See Crawford &• Moses' Digest, § 609 and 6250.
The defendant filed an answer, alleging facts which, if proved, constituted a good defense to the action, and his answer was duly verified to show that it was a bona fide one.
A motion for a summary judgment under the statute should not be allowed where there appears a real issue of fact between the parties or a substantial defense to the proceeding. In other words, if it is made to appear to the court that the matters of defense set np in the answer are genuine and that a substantial issue of facts is thereby created, the parties are entitled to trial in the regular way in which suits between adversary parties are tried and decided, and a summary judgment is improper. Davies & Davies v. Patterson, 132 Ark. 484.
In that case the court said that the proceedings against an attorney under the above statutes are not in the nature of a common-law action or an ordinary civil suit under our Code of Procedure, but are special statutory proceedings, and must be specifically followed. In that case the answer stated facts which, if true, were sufficient to constitute a defense to the motion for a summary judgment. After stating these facts, the court said that in all such cases the trial court should deny the motion and treat the proceeding as an ordinary action at law, and allow it to take its regular course as such an action.
This is precisely what was done by the circuit court in the case at bar. The facts were submitted to the circuit court sitting as a jury. The evidence was in direct and irreconcilable conflict.
Under our settled rules of practice, the finding of facts made by the circuit court upon the trial of a case is not the subject of review upon appeal where there is any evidence of a substantial character to support it. The court was the trier of the facts as well as the law. It had the right to accept such portion of the evidence as it believed to he true and to reject that part which it did not believe to be true. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the finding of facts made by the circuit court is without evidence to sustain it.
It follows that the judgment of the circuit court must be affirmed.