Case Name: Sewell v. Harkey
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1943-06-28
Citations: 206 Ark. 24
Docket Number: 4-7097
Parties: Sewell v. Harkey.
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 206
Pages: 24–27

Head Matter:
Sewell v. Harkey.
4-7097
174 S. W. 2d 113
Opinion delivered June 28, 1943.
Oliver Moore, for appellant.
Caudle & White, for appellee.

Opinion:
Robins, J.
Appellee sued appellants before a justice of tbe peace for $122 balance alleged to be due for purchase money of certain lands. Prom an adverse judgment appellants appealed to tbe circuit court where the case was tried before the court sitting as a jury and appellee was awarded a like judgment, for reversal of which this appeal is prosecuted.
The judgment of. the lower court recites that the cause was heard upon "the testimony of witnesses," and, while the court, in the order overruling motion for new trial, granted appellants 90 days within which to file bill of exceptions, no bill of exceptions was ever filed and the testimony heard by the lower court is not brought into the record in any manner.
Appellants at the time of the trial made no request for any findings of law or fact, but the day after the judgment was rendered they requested findings of fact by the lower court. There is contained in the record, what purports to be a copy of such findings, signed by the judge, dated thirteen days after the rendition of the judgment. This document does not constitute any part of the record in this case and for that reason can not be considered by us.
In the case of Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Company v. Pruitt, 188 Ark. 92, 64 S. W. 2d 91, this court said: "The statute contemplates that these findings shall be made upon the trial, or during it, and a request made tilinteen days after the trial was not in apt time."
To the same effect is the opinion in the case of Bradley v. Harkey, 59 Ark. 178, 26 S. W. 827, where it was said: "An instrument of writing, signed by the judge, appears in the transcript, which purports to be conclusions of law and facts found by the court. . . . Appellants rely for reversal on the writing purporting to be conclusions of law and facts found by the court. Was it a part of the record? It has been held by this court that, without a bill of exceptions, the conclusions of law found by the court are no part of the record. Hall v. Bonville, 36 Ark. 491. For the same reason the findings of facts by the court should be brought on record by a bill of exceptions, both being required of the court, sitting as a jury, by the same statute. . . . There is no entry on the record showing the filing of any conclusions of law and fact in this case, and if any were filed, they were not in any way made a part of the judgment."-
In the case of Gibson v. Williams (headnote 2), 22 Ark. 224, it was held: ".Spreading'upon the record the reasons for a judgment of the court below sitting ás a jury will not supply the want of a bill of exceptions — the judgment will alone be looked to, and the reasons disregarded as surplusage. ' '
The following rule, announced by Mr. Justice Wood, in the case of B. F. Goodrich Rubber Company v. Presley, 154 Ark. 151, 241 S. W. 891, is controlling here: "The errors complained of do not appear in the record proper and can only be presented for review before this court through a duly authenticated bill of exceptions according to some one of the methods required by our statute, supra. See Madison County v. Maples, 103 Ark. 44, 145 S. W. 887; Carnehan v. Parker, 102 Ark. 439, 144 S. W. 907; Huff v. Citizens' National Bank, 99 Ark. 97, 137 S. W. 802. Since there was no bill of 'exceptions, it must be presumed that the rulings of the trial court were in all things correct, and the judgment must therefore be affirmed. ' '
It conclusively appears that the matter in litigation herein was within the jurisdiction of the lower court, and, since the record does not disclose any error in the proceedings had therein, the judgment appealed from must be affirmed.