{
  "id": 236588,
  "name": "John Tilford & Co., appellants, vs. Allen M. Oakley, appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "John Tilford & Co. v. Oakley",
  "decision_date": "1832-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "197",
  "last_page": "197",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "1 Ark. Terr. Rep. 197"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Super. Ct.",
    "id": 9132,
    "name": "Superior Court of the Territory of Arkansas"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Caines' Rep. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cai. Cas.",
      "case_ids": [
        12121276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cai/3/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Cranch, 282",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Cranch,",
      "case_ids": [
        6763792,
        12122746
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/dc/1/0282-01",
        "/us/5/0282-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 103,
    "char_count": 1182,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.009137212246737164
    },
    "sha256": "0f58a08b1d5b8151dc9b279fd01a2ec7c278574a694eaac69fc3c07e778bbbf2",
    "simhash": "1:9e0748e7e8c166d2",
    "word_count": 204
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:42.619619+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Tilford & Co., appellants, vs. Allen M. Oakley, appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion oe the Court. \u2014 This is an appeal from the decree of the circuit court of Hempstead county, pronounced in a cause wherein John Tilford & Co. were complainants, and Allen M. Oakley, defendant, dismissing the complainants\u2019 bill. The complainants filed their bill to enforce a decree of the Bath circuit court of the State of Kentucky, decreeing the defendant Oakley to pay a specific sum of money. The only question for the consideration of this court is, whether a bill in chancery is the appropriate remedy to enforce a decree in chancery for the payment of a specific sum of money. We think it is not the proper remedy. The complaint had a clear and complete remedy at law, by an action of debt founded on the decree. Thompson v. Jameson, 1 Cranch, 282; Post & La Rue v. Neafie,. 3 Caines\u2019 Rep. 22; Sadler v. Robins, 1 Camp. 253.\nRecree affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": null
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Tilford & Co., appellants, vs. Allen M. Oakley, appellee.\nA bill in chancery is not the proper remedy to enforce a decree in chancery for the payment of money, the remedy at law being adequate and complete.\nJuly, 1832.\n\u2014 Appeal from Hempstead Circuit Court, determined before Thomas P. Eskridge and Edward Cross, judges."
  },
  "file_name": "0197-01",
  "first_page_order": 213,
  "last_page_order": 213
}
