{
  "id": 6142004,
  "name": "Russell STOUTT v. Charles B. RIDGWAY et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stoutt v. Ridgway",
  "decision_date": "1983-10-19",
  "docket_number": "CA 82-500",
  "first_page": "315",
  "last_page": "317",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ark. App. 315"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "658 S.W.2d 420"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Ark. App. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136784
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "remanded because erroneous measure of damages was applied; remanded for presentation of proof on damages"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "remanded because erroneous measure of damages was applied; remanded for presentation of proof on damages"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/1/0035-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 Ark. 870",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726002
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "remanded because tried upon erroneous theory; neither party offered proof on correct point of law"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "remanded because tried upon erroneous theory; neither party offered proof on correct point of law"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/214/0870-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 Ark. 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721380
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/273/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ark. App. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136537
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/7/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 241,
    "char_count": 3100,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.861,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.487481659120741e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3437449442033107
    },
    "sha256": "0db5ffa20f65c6514f4aeaaf3b39edcc83b4d72e89d12c618e76f3061cf351bf",
    "simhash": "1:045ee512b421e1d8",
    "word_count": 488
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:18.031409+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cracraft and Cloninger, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Russell STOUTT v. Charles B. RIDGWAY et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge.\nThis appeal arises from a decree awarding appellees $10,522.06 for unpaid obligations incurred in connection with construction of a commercial, two flume water slide on appellee\u2019s property. In addition, the chancellor found that by his failure to perform the parties\u2019 contract in a satisfactory fashion, the appellant forfeited any rights he had in connection with the contract to share in the profits of the water slide. The court dissolved the parties\u2019 partnership and terminated the appellant\u2019s interest in it.\nThe appellant does not appeal from that part of the decree giving judgment to appellee for $10,522.06. Appellant contends the court erred, however, in ordering a forfeiture of his rights to share in partnership profits and in terminating appellant\u2019s interest in the partnership. We agree the judge erred, and therefore reverse.\nAppellee contends that no partnership existed between the parties and that even if the parties intended to enter into a partnership, appellant\u2019s failure to perform the contract prevented the partnership from coming into existence. We find no merit in this contention, primarily because it was not presented below. Both parties proceeded at trial as if a partnership existed. In fact, they asked the chancellor to dissolve it, and he did so. Because appellee failed to question the parties\u2019 partnership below, that issue canot be raised for the first time on appeal. Wilson v. Kemp, 7 Ark. App. 44, 644 S.W.2d 306 (1982).\nWe do, however, find error in that part of the decree which dissolves the partnership and terminates appellant\u2019s interest in it. The agreement between the parties makes no provision for termination of either party\u2019s interest except upon two contingencies: (1) appellee\u2019s sale or lease of the slide, and (2) appellant\u2019s death. Because their agreement did not provide specifically for dissolution and termination of the interests of the parties, the Uniform Partnership Act applies. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 65-101 to -143; see specifically \u00a7\u00a7 65-129, -138 (Supp. 1983). See also Osborne v. Workman, 273 Ark. 538, 621 S.W.2d 478 (1981).\nThe record clearly indicates that the chancellor failed to apply the Uniform Act. We therefore reverse that part of the judgment terminating appellant\u2019s interests in the partnership and remand for a determination of the parties\u2019 interests under the Act, specifically those provisions governing dissolution. See Brizzolara v. Powell, 214 Ark. 870, 218 S.W.2d 728 (1949) (remanded because tried upon erroneous theory; neither party offered proof on correct point of law); Moore v. City of Blytheville, 1 Ark. App. 35, 612 S.W.2d 327 (1981) (remanded because erroneous measure of damages was applied; remanded for presentation of proof on damages).\nAffirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.\nCracraft and Cloninger, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hobbs, Longinotti it Bosson, by: Louis J. Longinotti, III, for appellant.",
      "Curtis L. Ridgway, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Russell STOUTT v. Charles B. RIDGWAY et al\nCA 82-500\n658 S.W.2d 420\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered October 19, 1983\nHobbs, Longinotti it Bosson, by: Louis J. Longinotti, III, for appellant.\nCurtis L. Ridgway, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0315-01",
  "first_page_order": 339,
  "last_page_order": 341
}