MYERS v. ANSPACH. VOL. 17 MYERS V.
ANSPACH ET AL. The cases of State Bank v. Conway, 13 Ark. 344; Tones et al. v. Gatlin, 16 Ark., cited. Quere : Does a mistake in stating the name of the judge, before whom a judgment, upon which the suit is founded, was rendered, constitute a variance, of which advantage may be taken. Appeal from iSebastian Circuit Court. ON. JOHN J. CLENDENIN, H Circuit Judge, presiding. S. H. Hempstead, for the appellant. HANLY, J. This was au action of debt, brought on a foreign judgment,
JAN. TERM, 1856. and was tried in the Sebastian circuit transcript for the purpose of determin-3ourt, upon an issue to a plea of nu/ ing this assumption on the part of the tiel record, interposed by the appellant. counsel, we doubt not, but that it Upon this issue, there was a finding for might be shown, from both principle the appellees. The transcript further and authority, that it does not consti-states, that, after the finding by the tute such a variance as to render the court, upon the issue of nul tiel record, judgment irregular, or authorize us to "neither of the parties requiring a jury, reverse it on that account. But on the and the court being sufficiently advised express authority of Jones et al. v. Gat-of the premises, do find that said lin,16 Ark. Rep. 35, and the State 4684 ] "defendant is indebted to the Bank v. Conway, 13 Ark. Rep. 344, we said plaintiff in the sum," &c. There have no power or right to look into the seems to have been no exception taken question, as the case is presented to us to the Anding of the court upon the upon the transcript in this cause. issue of nut tiel record, nor was the The truth is, there is no case pre-transcript sued on, brought legiti-sented for the consideration of this mately on the record by oyer craved -court, either on error or appeal. r469 and granted. The entry, in respect to See also Kinney et al. v. Heald, de-the record sued on, is in these words: cided at the present term of this court. "And the record aforesaid being in-The judgment of the Sebastian cir-spected by the court, it sufficiently ap-cuit court is affirmed, with 5 per cent. pears that there is such a record," &c. damages on the amount of the judg-No complaint seems to have been made ment recovered below, and costs. in the court below, to any ruling or de-Absent, Mr. Justice Scott. cision of that court. There does not Note.—There roust be a mmtion for new trial. seem US have been a motion for a new Danley v. Robins, 3-146, note 1. trial made. The defendant below appealed from the final judgment rendered in the cause, and assigns as error here, "that the court below found the issue ou nul tiel record, for the appel-less, and that the judgment was rendered against appellant, whereas, by the law of the land, such judgment should have been given in his favor." It is insisted, on the part of the appellant, that the transcript of the judgment does not correspond with the one described in the declaration, in this : that the declaration describes the judgment as recovered at the district court of the city of Philadelphia, in and for the State of Pennsylvania, at the June term of said court, 1854, "before the lion. George Shurman, Esq., President Judge," &c., and it appears from the transcript of the judgment that it "was recovered before George Shars-wood, President Judge," &c. If we had a right to look into this 17 Rep.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.