{
  "id": 1345652,
  "name": "Lamew v. Wilson-Ward Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lamew v. Wilson-Ward Co.",
  "decision_date": "1913-01-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "340",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 Ark. 340"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "62 Ark. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ark. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4176277657524366e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6483503478388122
    },
    "sha256": "d0ae244baa7fee45ec9d6371df6e63812693fc0928409bf731b126ed79e921eb",
    "simhash": "1:a97cddccdd7564ee",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:15:54.408613+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lamew v. Wilson-Ward Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\n(after stating the facts). \u201cJoint obligations shall be construed to have the same effect as joint and several obligations, and may be sued on, and recoveries had thereon in like manner.\u201d Kirby\u2019s Digest, section 4420.\n\u201cPersons severally liable upon the same contract, including parties to bills of exchange, promissory notes, etc., may all or any of them, be included in the same action, at the plaintiff\u2019s option.\u201d Kirby\u2019s .Digest, sections 6009, 6010. See Maledon v. Leflore, 62 Ark. 391.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Smith and O. C. Blackford, for appellant.",
      "A. S. Irby, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lamew v. Wilson-Ward Company.\nOpinion delivered January 27, 1913.\nBills and notes \u2014 liability op joint maker. \u2014 When a note is signed by the firm B. & L. and by B. and L. individually, L. is liable for the full amount of the note, although no service is had upon B.\nAppeal from Lawrence Circuit Court; B. E. Jeffery, Judge;\naffirmed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThis is a suit brought by the appellee against appellant and one John A. Bush, upon their joint note for $1,000. The note was signed by the firm of Bush & Lamew and by W. L. Lamew and John A. Bush individually. There was no service upon Bush, but service was had upon Lamew. Lamew answered that he was liable to the appellee for one-half of the amount of the note and no more, and offered to confess judgment for $565, and for the costs of suit. The court, upon the complaint and answer, rendered judgment against the defendant, La-mew, for the full amount of the note, with costs, from which judgment Lamew appeals to this court, contending that the judgment was erroneous because Bush was not served with summons, and judgment could not have been rendered against appellant for more than one-half of the amount of the note.\nW. P. Smith and O. C. Blackford, for appellant.\n1. This was a joint obligation and appellant was only liable for one-half the note. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 4420, 4422, 6009, 6010, 6011.\nA. S. Irby, for appellee.\n1. Two or more persons jointly liable for the payment of money are severally liable for the whole debt. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 \u00a7 4420, 6009, 6010; 62 Ark. 391."
  },
  "file_name": "0340-01",
  "first_page_order": 360,
  "last_page_order": 361
}