{
  "id": 1561048,
  "name": "Ray v. Gregory",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ray v. Gregory",
  "decision_date": "1915-07-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "50",
  "last_page": "54",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 Ark. 50"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "48 Ark. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1887778
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/48/0396-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ark. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727812
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/11/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ark. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1315927
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/98/0125-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 Ark. 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1888711
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/47/0464-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ark. 271",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1530651
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/81/0271-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 357,
    "char_count": 7626,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05834645185877632
    },
    "sha256": "fb17bc8c574a88d8ca599bc6782cca9f0ba67ae68db21621bfeb4f08d5b1d8d8",
    "simhash": "1:a9c2dfe95418364c",
    "word_count": 1287
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:47:48.789730+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ray v. Gregory."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Kirby, J.,\n(after stating the facts). Appellants contend that the court erred in refusing to allow their judgment against appellee set off against his judgment against them, and in declaring appellee\u2019s judgment exempt from such set-off.\nIt is true that appellee did not claim the amount of his judgment exempt against set-off of the judgment of appellants against him in this proceeding, hut his judgment was for damages for the value of property allowed him by law exempt from execution caused to be sold by said appellants, and of which they received the proceeds, and since the whole proceeding was but to enforce his claim of exemptions and procure the benefit of the exemptions allowed him \u00a1by law, there was no necessity that a further formal claim or schedule of such judgment as exempt should have been filed at the time of the rendition of the judgments herein. Appellants had appellee\u2019s exempt property sold for the payment of their judgment, and the proceeds of the sale credited thereon. They had the right to have such sale made as the justice had disallowed appellee\u2019s claim of exemptions in the former suit, and he had appealed to the circuit court without giving bond, but since the claim had been properly made and was thereafter allowed by the circuit \u00a1court, they were bound to the repayment of the value of the property sold after it was held to be exempt from the execution, and this without regard to whether appellee was indebted to them upon their judgment or otherwise. Fultz v. Castleberry, 81 Ark. 271.\n\u201cWhile it is true that judgments for recovery of money may be set .off against each other, the set-off is to be ordered by the court \u201chaving due regard to the legal and equitable rights of all persons interested in both judgments.\u201d Kirby\u2019s Digest, section 6238.\nNo motion was in fact made in the court below for such set-off and no error was committed in not setting said judgments off against each other. Atkinson v. Pittman, 47 Ark. 464.\nIf appellants were permitted to set their judgment off against that of appellee recovered against them for the value of his exempt property sold by them, he would he deprived of his exemptions and compelled to have the property applied to the payment of the yery judgment against which he claimed it exempt from execution, as he had the right to do. There was no necessity for any further claim of exemption to be made since the complaint set out fully the former proceedings, the judgment obtained and the claim of exemptions made and allowed by the circuit and Supreme 'Courts, and asked damages for the value of the exempt property sold under the execution.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Kirby, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellants pro se.",
      "8. A. D. Eaton, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ray v. Gregory.\nOpinion delivered July 5, 1915.\n1. Exemptions \u2014 action fob damages fob sale of exempt peopebty.\u2014 When exempt property has been sold under judicial process, in an action for damages, the debtor need' not formally claim that the creditor\u2019s judgment could not \u00a1be set off against the one he recovered.\n2'. Exemptions \u2014 sale of exempt peopebty \u2014 reimbursement.\u2014When a creditor sells property belonging to the debtor, after securing a judgment in the circuit court, having appealed 'from justice court to the circuit court without bond, when the property is shown to \u00a1be exempt, the creditor must reimburse the debtor.\n3. Exemptions \u2014 sale of exempt property \u2014 damages\u2014set-off by judgment creditor. \u2014 Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6238, provides that judgments \u25a0for the recovery of money may be set-off against each other, due ' regard being had to the equitable and legal rights of all persons interested in both judgments, and when a judgment creditor procured the sale' of his debtor\u2019s' exempt property, the creditor can 'not, in an action'for damages'for the-sale thereof, set-off against the debtor\u2019s judgment, his judgment against the debtor, since that would destroy the exemption.\nAppeal from Randolph Circuit Court; J. B. Baker, Judge;\naffirmed.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nE. Dalton, obtained a judgment on a promissory note on the 13th day of January, 1912, in the justice court for $161.60 against the appellee Jno. A. Gregory, the maker, and the appellants, Jno. G. Ray and Geo. H. James, the endorsers thereon.\nSaid Ray and James paid Dalton the full amount of the judgment, and took an assignment thereof on said date and on the 14th caused an execution to issue in Dalton\u2019s name against the property of Gregory for their benefit.\nThe sheriff levied the execution .upon certain property of Gregory, who, after giving notice, filed a schedule claiming 'his exemptions therein, which were not allowed by the justice. Gregory appealed to the circuit court without giving bond, and the sheriff sold the property under the execution.\nThe circuit court rendered judgment in his favor, allowing the claim of exemptions, and the case was appealed to the Supreme 'Court and affirmed.\nAfterward, on the 29th day of June, 1914, Gregory brought this suit in the circuit court against appellants for damages for the sale of his property under said execution, which was exempt from such sale.\nAppellants answered, admitting the allegations of the complaint, and set up the Dalton judgment, of which they were assignees and owners, as a counterclaim thereto.\nThe agreed statement shows the facts as set out above, and the court instructed the jury to find for appellee such damages as they found the value of the property claimed exempt to have been at the date of the sale under execution, and also to find for appellants in the amount of their counterclaim, with 10 per cent, interest.\nThe jury assessed the' damages for the sale of the propertv at $125, and found for appellants the amount of their judgment, $161.60, with 10 per cent: interest from February 14,1914.\nThe court rendered judgment in Gregory\u2019s favor against Ray and James for the sum of $125 damages for the sale of his exempt property, and also gave judgment against him in favor of the appellants for the amount of the verdict and interest.\nIt further adjudged that the judgment against appellants for the value of the exempt property sold under execution at their instance was exempt against the set-off or counterclaim of appellants for their judgment against him, from which last judgment this appeal is prosecuted.\nAppellants pro se.\nThe court erred in declaring the judgment in favor of appellee to be exempt from any set-off or counterclaim of appellants.\nThe judgment in favor of appellants against appellee is not a judgment for debt due upon contract, but a judgment by a surety against a principal for an obligation created by statute, and appellee\u2019s judgment is not exempt against the set-off or counterclaim of appellants. They are entitled to recoup for the money paid out for their principal. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 6098; 98 Ark. 125, and authorities cited.\nThe judgments should have been set off, one against the other, and judgment rendered for the difference. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 6238.\n8. A. D. Eaton, for appellee.\nAppellants created appellee\u2019s cause of action by their wrongful act in causing his property to be sold under execution, after he had legally claimed the same as exempt from sale under the execution. The court, in good conscience, could not permit appellants to profit by their own wrong, and thus accomplish indirectly what they were prohibited by law from doing directly. The judgment is right on principle, and should be affirmed. 11 Ark. 378; 16 'Cyp. 144.\nAppellants\u2019 claim was not such as could properly be used as a counterclaim in this action. Kirby\u2019s Dig., \u00a7 6099. It was a mere chose in action created by statute. Id., \u00a7 7918. See, also, 48 Ark. 396; Pomeroy on Remedies (4 ed.), 651-664."
  },
  "file_name": "0050-01",
  "first_page_order": 74,
  "last_page_order": 78
}