TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Old American Life Ins. v. Lewis

Old American Life Ins, Co. v. David Lewis

Old Am. Life Ins. v. Lewis, 438 S.W.2d 22 (Ark. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 10, 1969
Docket
No. 5-4831
Judges
Brown
Citations
438 S.W.2d 22246 Ark. 3211969 Ark. LEXIS 1247

Opinion of the Court — Brown

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Lyle Brown, Justice. Appellee David Lewis was awarded judgment against appellants, Old American Life Insurance Co. and National Security Life Insurance Co. Defendants below petitioned the court to set aside the judgment, alleging unavoidable casualty as justification for their failure to appear on the day set for trial. In dismissing that petition the trial court specifically found that they had not complied with Act 123 of 1963; Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2106.3 to 27-2106.6 (Supp. 1967). That act provides for the extension of the time for giving notice of appeal in cases where certain specified motions are filed. The sole question on appeal is whether the trial court applied the applicable law in denying the petition to vacate the judgment.

We discussed Act 123 in St. Louis S.W. Ry. v. Farrell, 241 Ark. 707 , 409 S.W. 2d 341 (1966). “Act 123 was evidently intended to remedy an awkward situation created by Act 555 of 1953. ’ ’ Act 555 required a notice of'appeal to be filed within thirty days after entry of judgment by the trial court. That requirement had to be abandoned for the benefit of a losing party who might have good reason to file a post-judgment pleading, such as a motion for a new trial, or one of the several motions enumerated in Act 123. Consequently, Act 123 established a procedure whereby the time for filing notice of appeal could be postponed pending the determination of such a post-judgment pleading.

Act 123 does not affect the long established procedures for the setting aside of judgments. It is clear from an examination of the act that the principal subject of all four sections is “notice of appeal”; in fact that phrase appears in ¡every section and a total of seven times in the comparatively short act. Any donbt about the act not affecting existing procedures for review by the trial court of ifs proceedings is dispelled by the last sentence: “Nothing herein contained shall be deemed to limit the right of any party to review of proceedings upon any motion which the law may permit to be filed after expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal.”

Appellants are entitled to have a hearing and determination of their petition under the appropriate statutory procedure.

Beversed and remanded.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1969: 11973: 11980: 11991: 119692026peak 1969 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Phillips v. Jacobs ex rel. Jacobs807 S.W.2d 923 (Ark. 1991)
  2. Wood v. Yates-American Machine Co.439 S.W.2d 307 (Ark. 1969)
  3. Hayes v. Rickett492 S.W.2d 419 (Ark. 1973)
  4. Jacobs v. Leilabadi593 S.W.2d 479 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980)

Most recent

  1. Phillips v. Jacobs ex rel. Jacobs807 S.W.2d 923 (Ark. 1991)
  2. Jacobs v. Leilabadi593 S.W.2d 479 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980)
  3. Hayes v. Rickett492 S.W.2d 419 (Ark. 1973)
  4. Wood v. Yates-American Machine Co.439 S.W.2d 307 (Ark. 1969)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Farrell, 409 S.W.2d 341 (Ark. 1966) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list