Case Name: Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1927-10-17
Citations: 174 Ark. 1161
Docket Number: 
Parties: Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 174
Pages: 1161–1163

Head Matter:
Martin v. Pierce Petroleum Corporation.
Opinion delivered October 17, 1927.
T. J. Moher and John L. Ingram, for appellant.
Sam T. & Tom Poe, Floyd Sharp and McDonald Poe, for appellee.

Opinion:
Humphreys, J.
This is an appeal by Fred W. Martin and Ida IT. Martin from a judgment rendered in the circuit court of Arkansas, County on the 24th day of August, 1926, against them, J, TI, Martin and Frank IT, Martin and'each of them, , in. fayor. \qf \app,elje5e.¡ for $1,123.33 with interest at the rate sjk ¡pe-r. cent. _ per annum from the date of the judgment. ;It was.alleged,in the amended and substituted complaint tha|e said .appellants were members of a partnership .trading' under, thp name of "The Martin Company,".to .whom appellee sol.d merchandise in the amount for which suit was brought. The original complaint referred to the partnership as J. H. Martin & Company, and did not allege that Prank II. Martin was a partner.
Appellants filed an answer, denying that they or either of them were partners in the Martin Trading Company. On September 15, 1926, they filed a motion for a new "trial on the ground that no proof was introduced in support of the issue raised, and that for such reason the, judgment was without evidence to sustain it. ' Oh December 6, 1926, appellee filed a verified motion :i;pr correct the judgment entered on August 24, 1926, so as to show that, before the rendition of said judgment, proof was introduced to establish that appellants were members of the partnership of "The Martin Company." After hearing testimony, the court corrected the judgment' so as to embrace a recital that proof was introduced before the original judgment was entered to show that appellants were partners doing business as "The Martin Company."- The court then overruled the motion for a new trial, over appellant's objection and exception.
Although appellants objected and excepted to the order of the court correcting the judgment, they did not preserve the objection and exception, either in a supplemental motion for a new trial or by amendment to their original motion for new trial. This court therefore cannot determine whether the evidence adduced by appellee on its motion to correct the judgment was sufficient to justify the correction. The rule is that this court will not consider alleged errors of the trial court unless embraced in a motion for a new trial. Van Hoozer v. Hendricks, 143 Ark. 463, 221 S. W. 378.
'The'recital in the judgment, byway of amendment, tb' the .effect-that 'the- trial court'heard-evidbhóé to show íj*-í ! / ¡ ' * ] ; *}' Ü-i-1 ! ' * i j 1' ' f j ¡ i»ni j j i " * '4 (J ! t * 'ü ,»/ I ri * that appellants, .wOrcí;iUQ2pDGrq oí r the partnership doing línslnesNas ^Tlíe 'Martin. ,Oon%anyM/mps.t!b'éiíaióceípWd bj-'tMs-cóüiH'ás''édncliiáiye of 'tná't f'áct;1 !
Wb'Wbioli/.tbiiik^tbe'Nátíailee ftettfedir'títe^iiyiíiefe ^tT.^H/M'aárffiñ1 Fqnrjbany,!T 'siddf '^Tüé' M&Má' ' .boifíókíí^,s> ib! :tbé "tVb: homibihints'vis ¿lifficikht; to" !ébair'átíteibzé1'' 'th'é íattef'-éMÍ ás';a',sép!arate':ári'dí,diktitíct 'ihii't.1'* Bbdhih'ppeil.-laÍLts'iVé!rél :mádé' 'déféiídáíibs _ ib ;thfe flbát,;sñlt' j&'é -jfeWéfs the second, -alid"'the"'saíne1 áe'eoüñt'1 wa's'íhttabhedí:áh"áíh ekhibi-hto botín com^'laínts^.bo'thbáccomitsvhavmghbeen made out against "The Martin Company. Vu.iTfeei fhjst gnit .-Map' fiied! within, the- 'statnt.bEy¡'pei'Í0d.í 0-f¡ .'Hpaithtions, and the aQeqnntThquefor.&ivas not ¡'baited^ c h->; r.m rr. />
No error appearing, the-'judgmept'lis: affibrnieflifl-;'i<>