{ "id": 1554913, "name": "Grist v. Lee", "name_abbreviation": "Grist v. Lee", "decision_date": "1916-05-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "206", "last_page": "208", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "124 Ark. 206" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "63 Ark. 268", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722170 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/63/0268-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ark. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1527168 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/83/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ark. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721169 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" }, { "page": "213" }, { "page": "319, 325" } ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/69/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Ark. 682", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725789 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/33/0682-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 165", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1327693 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/59/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Ark. 210", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 Ark. 94", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0094-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 Ark. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1509427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/70/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 Ark. 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1499061 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/77/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Ark. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1501105 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/76/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 Ark. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "102 Ark. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1354068 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/102/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 Ark. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 349, "char_count": 4516, "ocr_confidence": 0.599, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9958481109654082e-07, "percentile": 0.7423515811153468 }, "sha256": "6f3ce164472d1d90a56536212b3ba866f0426ac907441c206a076bcc93d6188f", "simhash": "1:88813cfaae69ec78", "word_count": 802 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:49.378710+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Grist v. Lee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nThe complaint in this cause contained the following allegations: That on the 16th day of January, 1915, the defendant (appellant) entered into a contract with plaintiff (appellee) agreeing to purchase the interest and equity of plaintiff in a certain well drill and to pay therefor the- sum of, $250 and to assume ffhe payment of balance due. on said machine to the \u25a0 Lester-Sicard Machine Company, of Fort Smith, in the sum of about $254. That defendant immediately took from the possession of plaintiff said machine and, as he is informed and believed, has paid said balance due on said machine to the Lester-Sicard Machine Company.\nThat defendant on said date, agreed to execute to plaintiff his two promissory notes in the sum of $175 each, bearing interest' at 10 per cent., with security subject to plaintiff\u2019s approval. That said contract has been in all parts complied with except the execution of said notes on the part of defendant and that he still neglects and refuses to execute said notes and thereby has converted to his own' use the said property of plaintiff, to his damage in the sum of $350. Wherefore, judgment is prayed. The answer contained a general denial of these allegations. \u2022\nAppellee\u2019s testimony - as a witness was in substantial support of these allegations; but after the conclusion of his cross-examination he testified, on his redirect-examination, that he never authorized. Mr. Grist to get the drill and that he did not know he had gotten it until it had been hauled away. This evidence was given over appellant\u2019s objection and exception.\nAppellee says his suit is for the conversion of the drill and that the effect of his allegations in regard to the contract is merely to furnish a measure for the damages sustained by the wrongful conversion of his property, and instructions were given which conformed to this view.\nWe do not agree, however, with the view that this is the effect of the allegations of the complaint. We think the complaint states clearly a cause of action for damages for a breach of contract and that the court erroneously permitted appellee by his evidence to completely change the nature of his suit and to make it a suit for damages for a tort.\nIn the case of Patrick v. Whitely, 75 Ark. 468, the court quoted with approval the following language from the New York Court of Appeals: \u201cPleading and a distinct issue are essential in \u00bfvery system of jurisprudence, and there can be no orderly administration of justice without them. If a party can allege one cause of action, and then recover upon another, .his complaint will serve no useful purpose, but rather to ensnare and mislead his adversary.\u201d See also K. C. So. Ry. Co. v. Tonn, 102 Ark. 20; Wood v. Wood, 59 Ark. 446; Midland Valley Ry. Co. v. Ennis, 109 Ark. 217; White River Ry. Co. v. Hamilton, 76 Ark. 333; St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Gillihan, 77 Ark. 551; Shapleigh Hardware Co. v. Hamilton, 70 Ark. 319; Fluty v. School Dist., 49 Ark. 94; Conant v. Storthz, 69 Ark. 210; Railway Co. v. State, 59 Ark. 165; Railway Co. v. Dodd, 59 Ark. 323; Necklace v. West, 33 Ark. 682.\nWe think, therefore, that error was committed in thus permitting appellee to change the nature of his caus\u00bf of action and the judgment must, therefore, be reversed and the. cause will be dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robt. J. White, for appellant.", "D. E. Johnson, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Grist v. Lee.\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1916.\nPleading and practice \u2014 complaint sounding in contract \u2014 proof of tort. \u2014 Whore a complaint states a cause of action for breach of contract, it is error for the trial court to permit the plaintiff by bis evidence to completely change the nature of his suit, and to make a suit for damages for a tort.\nAppeal from Logan Circuit Court, Northern District; James Cochran, Judge;\nreversed.\nRobt. J. White, for appellant.\n1. This was a suit upon a 'contract and it was error to allow testimony to show a tort by conversion .of the property. One can not sue upon contract and recover in tort. 69 Ark. 209; 76 Id. 335; 64 Id. 213; 70 Id. 319, 325; 67 Id. 1; 49 Id. 94. The court improperly instructed the jury.\nD. E. Johnson, for appellee.\n1. Whether the issue was one of contract or of tort, . the matter grew out of the same facts and could be plead in the same suit. Acts 1905; 83 Ark. 288; 86 Id. 130.\n2. There is no error in the instructions. The answer does not deny conversion and the proof shows it. 63 Ark. 268; 54 Id. 30; 56 Id. 450. The verdict is amply sustained by the evidence and Lee\u2019s property was taken, as admitted, without his knowledge and consent." }, "file_name": "0206-01", "first_page_order": 230, "last_page_order": 232 }