From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haynie v. Dicus

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Feb 24, 1947
199 S.W.2d 954 (Ark. 1947)

Opinion

No. 4-8041

Opinion delivered January 13, 1947. Rehearing denied February 24, 1947.

1. APPEAL AND ERROR. — Where the issue is one of fact and the testimony is not brought up, it will be presumed on appeal that the testimony was sufficient to support the finding of the lower court. 2. APPEAL AND ERROR. — Appellant, a minor, having purchased from appellee a milk route and truck for $700, the finding of the chancellor, in an action to recover the money paid, that the properties purchased were `necessaries" was the determination of an issue of fact and there being none of the testimony before the court, it is conclusively presumed that it was sufficient to sustain the finding.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Frank H. Dodge, Chancellor; affirmed.

Madison K. Moran, for appellant.

E. H. Bostic, for appellee.


The Chancery Court held, in a suit begun by the father of appellant, Thomas Haynie, Jr., a minor, as his next friend, to cancel a contract by which appellee sold to said minor appellant and said appellant bought from appellee a "milk route" and truck for $700 and to recover back from appellee said purchase money, that the properties sold were "necessaries" for appellant, and refused the relief prayed.

The decree appealed from recites that the trial below was had on oral testimony adduced in open court. This testimony was not preserved by bill of exceptions or otherwise; and no testimony whatever appears in the record. The transcript before us consists only of the pleadings and the exhibits thereto, docket entries and the decree.

The question as to whether the properties sold to appellant were "necessaries" so as to make the sale a valid one, and the question as to whether the price paid by appellant was not more than reasonable value were both questions of fact; and, since we do not have before us the testimony on which the lower court based its decision, it must be conclusively presumed by us that there was adequate testimony to justify the lower court's findings. Hershy v. Berman, 45 Ark. 309; Carpenter v. Ellenbrook, 58 Ark. 134, 23 S.W. 792; Dierks Lumber Coal Company v. Cunningham, 81 Ark. 427, 99 S.W. 693; Brown v. Nelms, 86 Ark. 368, 112 S.W. 373; Young v. Vincent, 94 Ark. 115, 125 S.W. 658; Hicks v. Hicks, 122 Ark. 612, 184 S.W. 416; Tedford v. Chick, 114 Ark. 167, 169 S.W. 769; London v. McGehee, Trustee, 126 Ark. 469, 191 S.W. 10; McConnell v. McCord, 172 Ark. 21, 287 S.W. 757; Alger v. Beasley, 180 Ark. 46, 20 S.W.2d 317; Dent v. Adkisson, 184 Ark. 869, 43 S.W.2d 739; McCarson v. Hankins, 207 Ark. 294, 180 S.W.2d 830.

The decree of the lower court is accordingly affirmed.


Summaries of

Haynie v. Dicus

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Feb 24, 1947
199 S.W.2d 954 (Ark. 1947)
Case details for

Haynie v. Dicus

Case Details

Full title:HAYNIE v. DICUS

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Feb 24, 1947

Citations

199 S.W.2d 954 (Ark. 1947)
199 S.W.2d 954

Citing Cases

Watson v. Jones

We have held in many instances that where there is a failure to bring into the record the testimony presented…

Washington v. Johnson

It seems to me that the Court is assuming that no sufficient evidence was offered to establish liability on…