History
  • No items yet
midpage
Brakefield v. Halpern
55 Ark. 265
Ark.
1891
Check Treatment
Battle, J.

In his motion for a new trial appellant does not complain of the instruction given by the court. The only ground for a new trial set out in his motion is, the verdict was contrary to law and evidence. All other errprs, if any, were waived, and the only question presented for our consideration is, was the verdict sustained by the evidence ? The answer is, it was. It is unsatisfactory; but as there was some evidence to sustain it, we cannot disturb it, but, on the contrary, affirm the judgment of the court below.

Case Details

Case Name: Brakefield v. Halpern
Court Name: Supreme Court of Arkansas
Date Published: Jan 24, 1891
Citation: 55 Ark. 265
Court Abbreviation: Ark.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.