{
  "id": 1350637,
  "name": "Cazort & McGehee Company v. Byars",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cazort & McGehee Co. v. Byars",
  "decision_date": "1912-09-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "637",
  "last_page": "639",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 Ark. 637"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ark. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 Ark. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1497284
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/78/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 170",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 Ark. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "299"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "76 Ark. 575",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1501111
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/76/0575-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 Ark. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720081
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/69/0109-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ark. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722493
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/63/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 139",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326109
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0139-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Ark. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727903
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/13/0074-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 4090,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.665651525889828e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40582076406771206
    },
    "sha256": "860859a9410cb30e9c12a0d94f3b2167037f5053501ca51333c7d6e13fd356f0",
    "simhash": "1:8a7d3008aa066bb3",
    "word_count": 706
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:24.321988+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cazort & McGehee Company v. Byars."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nAppellant recovered judgment against appellee before a justice of the peace of Crawford County for the amount of a debt due on contract, and caused a transcript of the judgment to be filed in the office of the clerk of the circuit court, thereby creating a lien on the lands of appellee in the county. Subsequently execution was sued out and levied on a tract of land owned by appellee, who claims same as his homestead.\nThe present appeal involves the question of appellee\u2019s right to assert his homestead claim against appellant\u2019s judgment.\nAppellee inherited the land from his father, who owned the same and occupied it as his homestead at the time of his death, leaving surviving his widow, who continued to occupy it as her homestead until she attempted to convey it to appellee\u2019s wife, thus abandoning her homestead right. This occurred after the rendition of appellant\u2019s judgment and the filing of the transcript in the clerk\u2019s office, but before execution was issued. Appellee did not at that time live on the land, and had not impressed it as a homestead, but moved on the land before the execution was issued, and thereafter claimed it as his homestead. He had occupied the land several years prior thereto as tenant of .the widow, who was his stepmother, but at the time of the rendition of appellant\u2019s judgment he was living elsewhere on land of his wife.\nIs the homestead right available against appellant\u2019s judgment? The judgment constituted a lien, from the date of filing the transcript thereof with the clerk, on all lands which appellee owned in the county except the homestead so impressed at the time. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 4633. The fact that the lands constituted the homestead of appellee\u2019s father and were occupied as a homestead by the latter\u2019s widow did not prevent the judgment lien from attaching to appellee\u2019s reversionary interest. Trustees, etc., v. Watson, 13 Ark. 74; Littell v. Jones, 56 Ark. 139. The lien could not be displaced by appellee moving on to the land and impressing it as a homestead after the lien attached. Simpson v. Biffle, 63 Ark. 289; Burgauer v. Parker, 69 Ark. 109. The evidence is clear that appellee did not occupy the land as a homestead until the judgment lien of appellant had become fixed on it. His wife \u201cbought out\u201d the widow\u2019s homestead right, according to his testimony, after the transcript of. appellant\u2019s judgment had been filed with the clerk, and thereafter he moved on the land, which was then too late for the judgment lien to be displaced. The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions to deny appellee\u2019s prayer for supersedeas.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "C. A. Starbird, for appellant.",
      "S. T. Rowe and Prentiss E. Rowe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cazort & McGehee Company v. Byars.\nOpinion delivered September 30, 1912.\nHomestead \u2014 prior judgment lien. \u2014 Where a judgment was obtained in the court of a justice of the peace, and a transcript of the judgment was subsequently filed in the office of the circuit clerk, such judgment became a lien on land subsequently acquired by the judgment-debtor by inheritance from his father, and such lien could not be displaced by the debtor subsequently moving on the land and occupying it as a homestead.\nAppeal from Crawford Circuit Court; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge;\nreversed.\nC. A. Starbird, for appellant.\n1. The burden rests upon one who asserts the homestead right to show affirmatively that land was his homestead at the time the lien of the judgment attached. 75Ark. 228; 76 Ark. 575; 53 Ark. 289, 299; 51 Ark. 87.\nPresent residence upon the land, coupled with the present intention to make the land in question his homestead, is essential and necessary to impress the homestead character. 57 Ark. 170; 78 Ark. 479.\n2. A family can not have a homestead upon land of the wife, and another upon land of the husband at the same time. 71 Ark. 597.\nS. T. Rowe and Prentiss E. Rowe, for appellee.\nThe evidence shows that the land was the homestead of appellee\u2019s father, and at his death became the homestead of appellee\u2019s mother. It was not subject to the lien of any judgment. Art. 10, \u00a7 3, Const. 1874; 56 Ark. 158; 74 Ark. 167."
  },
  "file_name": "0637-01",
  "first_page_order": 655,
  "last_page_order": 657
}