Court Opinion

ID: 6547972
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:21:14.220485+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:56:01.452303
License: Public Domain

McCulloch, C. J. Appellants, N. L. C. Baker and others, instituted an action in the circuit court of Lawrence County against appellee, C. H. Martin, to recover a tract of land. The answer of appellee put in issue all the allegations of the complaint as to the title to the land, and also pleaded adverse possession for seven years. The case was heard by the court sitting as a jury on an agreed statement of facts, and the court made a finding in favor of appellee, except as to some of the plaintiffs who were exempt from the bar of the statute of limitations by reason of coverture and infancy, and judgment was entered accordingly. This judgment was rendered on March 11, 1909, and a motion for new trial was filed on the same day, but the record does not show that the motion was ever presented to or passed on by the court. N. L. C. Baker and the other unsuccessful plaintiffs presented to the trial judge on that day their bill of exceptions, which was signed by the judge and filed; and in October, 1909, they prayed an appeal, which was granted by the clerk of this court. The bill of exceptions contains a recital to the effect that the motion for new trial had been overruled by the court, and exceptions to, that ruling saved. During the September term, 1909, of the circuit court, appellants filed a motion in that court alleging that during the March term they presented their motion for a new trial to the court, and that the court overruled same, and also made an order allowing them to present their bill of exceptions within thirty days; and they prayed that said order of court • overruling said motion for new trial, and granting time for filing bill of exceptions, be entered then as of the March term. Upon a hearing of the motion, the court found that the motion for new trial had not been overruled, and that no such orders had ever been pronounced .by the court, and the court overruled the motion for a nunc fro tunc entry. Appellants prayed an appeal from that decision. The judgment of the circuit court is responsive to the pleadings, and is within the issues presented thereby, and, in the absence of á bill of exceptions, we cannot review the action of the circuit court in its finding of fact, no error appearing on the face of the judgment. Smith v. Hollis, 46 Ark. 17. Neither can we review the judgment where the motion for new trial was never presented to the court for its action thereon. Young v. King, 33 Ark. 745; Kearney v. Moose, 37 Ark. 37. The recitals of the bill of exceptions can not be looked to in order to ascertain whether or not the motion for new trial has been presented to and overruled ¡by the court. An order overruling a motion for new trial is one which should appear on the records of the court. Carpenter v. Dressier, 76 Ark. 400. That being the appropriate place for it to appear, it has no place in a bill of exceptions. The office of a bill of exceptions is to bring on the record only things which are not properly matters of record. It is not proper to embody therein things which properly belong on the record, such as the judgment of the court, the order overruling motion for new trial, or order granting an appeal. Anthony v. Brooks, 31 Ark. 725. Error of the court is assigned in refusing to postpone the hearing of the motion to amend the record. Appellants were represented by two attorneys, one residing at Walnut Ridge and the other at Van Burén, Arkansas. The motion was presented to the court by the attorney residing at Walnut Ridge, and he moved for a postponement until the next term of the court in order to procure the attendance of the other attorney, who, he alleged, would testify that the motion for new, trial was presented to the court and overruled. No reason was stated why the attorney was not present, and no diligence was shown to obtain his attendance. The matter of continuance was one within the discretion of the court, and no abuse of that discretion is shown. Judgment affirmed.