{
  "id": 6649094,
  "name": "J. B. SMITH v. CHICOT-LIPE INSURANCE AGENCY, a Partnership",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Chicot-Lipe Insurance Agency",
  "decision_date": "1984-03-14",
  "docket_number": "CA 85-152",
  "first_page": "49",
  "last_page": "52",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 Ark. App. 49"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "665 S.W.2d 907"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "227 Ark. 782",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1705670
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/227/0782-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 Ark. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1693984
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "722"
        },
        {
          "page": "862"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/232/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 Ark. 203",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1688420
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/234/0203-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 726",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719930
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "728"
        },
        {
          "page": "599"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0726-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 4928,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.862,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5288532515074799e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6707176750459196
    },
    "sha256": "970197ac8976c106789f335608fb070d0251b1125645e2402b6407f342153445",
    "simhash": "1:8bfbf517a3c1f1bf",
    "word_count": 791
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:16:17.677907+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cooper and Corbin, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "J. B. SMITH v. CHICOT-LIPE INSURANCE AGENCY, a Partnership"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nThis appeal is from a jury verdict for $2,313.74 in favor of the appellee, which had filed an action against appellant on an open account. Appellee underwrote a number of various insurance policies for appellant, and the account which is the subject of this litigation covered these policies and other services furnished the appellant between December 25, 1975, and May 25, 1978. Seeking reversal of the decision below, appellant contends the trial court erred (1) in admitting certain business records into evidence, (2) in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for directed verdict, and (3) in instructing the jury incorrectly. From our review, we conclude that none of the appellant\u2019s arguments justifies the reversal of this cause.\nAppellant first argues the court violated Rule 803(6) of the Uniform Rules of Evidence by admitting into evidence certain ledger cards reflecting appellant\u2019s account and the amount he allegedly owed the appellee. His argument is premised on the fact that the testimony qualifying the cards as business records was inadmissible because the witness was not qualified to verify appellant\u2019s account. We disagree. Under Rule 803(6), the custodian or other qualified witness can testify concerning business records. Here, the custodian (bookkeeper) did not testify, but appellee\u2019s managing partner, Ray Reese, did. Reese testified extensively regarding the ledger cards, demonstrating a knowledge of and detailed familiarity with the itemized transactions chronologically listed on them. The trial judge has the discretion to determine the qualifications of witnesses and the admissibility of evidence, and upon our review of the record, we cannot say the judge abused his discretion in allowing Reese to testify concerning appellant\u2019s account. See Cates v. State, 267 Ark. 726, 728, 589 S.W.2d 598, 599 (1979).\nIn his second argument, appellant contends the ap-pellee failed to establish that the appellant\u2019s account was unpaid. His contention centers on a premium finance note he signed for the purchase of insurance from the appellee; the appellee \u201crecoursed\u201d the note to a bank, and the loan proceeds were credited to appellant\u2019s account for that purchase. However, appellant still was required to pay the bank monthly on the note until it was satisfied. Later, appellant defaulted on the note; appellee paid the bank and charged the amount it paid on the note against appellant\u2019s account.\nBecause the appellee did not introduce the paid note into evidence, appellant claims appellee failed to show he was liable on the note. However, appellee sued appellant on his account, not on the promissory note. In fact, the account listed numerous insurance purchases and service charges and was not limited to the note the appellee paid in the amount of $3,990.07. After all payments made by appellant were credited to his account, it still reflected a balance due of $2,313.74, the amount awarded by the jury.\nAppellee filed a verified complaint that set forth appellant\u2019s account and the payment due; by doing so, appellee made a prima facie showing under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-202 (Repl. 1979), on which a judgment could be satisfied. See McWater v. Ebone, 234 Ark. 203, 350 S.W.2d 905 (1961). Appellant never denied the correctness of the verified account by an affidavit or verified answer, although \u00a7 28-202 required him to do so in order to contradict such account. See Cawood v. Pierce, 232 Ark. 721, 722, 339 S.W.2d 861, 862 (1960). Nor did he offer any testimony after appellee presented its case. Instead, he moved for directed verdict. On these facts, the trial court was clearly correct in finding the appellee had proved the correctness of appellant\u2019s account and in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for directed verdict. See also Walden v. Metzler, 227 Ark. 782, 301 S.W.2d 439 (1957).\nAppellant\u2019s final argument, challenging a jury instruction, has no merit in view of our disposition of his second argument above. Appellant claims that any debt owed appellee resulted from the unpaid promissory note and that the trial court erred in ins tructing he could be found indebted to appellee on an account. The Courts instruction provided:\nIf you find from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff (appellee) furnished the items on the account as alleged and there remains an unpaid balance owing thereon, then you will find for the plaintiff and against the defendant (appellant) for such unpaid balance.\nAs we already have noted, appellee\u2019s action was based on an open account, not on a promissory note. The foregoing instruction correctly reflects the basis on which appellee filed and proved its case. We affirm.\nAffirmed.\nCooper and Corbin, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. Gibson, for appellant.",
      "W. K. Grubbs, Sr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. B. SMITH v. CHICOT-LIPE INSURANCE AGENCY, a Partnership\nCA 85-152\n665 S.W.2d 907\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered March 14, 1984\nJohn F. Gibson, for appellant.\nW. K. Grubbs, Sr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0049-01",
  "first_page_order": 69,
  "last_page_order": 72
}