{
  "id": 1585024,
  "name": "Ramey-Milburn Company v. Ford",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ramey-Milburn Co. v. Ford",
  "decision_date": "1920-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "563",
  "last_page": "565",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "146 Ark. 563"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 Ark. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ark. 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark. 204",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ark. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3956,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.474027514575171e-08,
      "percentile": 0.48552849992412683
    },
    "sha256": "2f1c3669e5f456a6a5e563d868a4390c44396d42e66dabfbb5ebf41138b2e443",
    "simhash": "1:e43feb1d8007518e",
    "word_count": 684
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:50:44.134973+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ramey-Milburn Company v. Ford."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smiti-i, J.\nJ. A. Ford was engaged in the mercantile business until his death, which occurred November 25, 1919. He was survived by his widow and two sons. He left a will and named his sons as his executors; but the will made no provision for the continuance of his business. Ford, at the time of his death, was indebted to the appellant grocery company in the sum of $195.95. The sons continued this business, and bought goods from appellant company amounting to $353.33; but while so continuing the business, they paid appellant $468.74. Appellant credited the sum thus paid \u2014 without any direction so to do \u2014 on the oldest items of the account, and brought this suit against the widow and sons of Ford to recover the balance due it. There was a trial before the court \u2022upon the appeal from the justice court, and a judgment for defendants, from which is this appeal.\nIt is not insisted here that the widow should be held liable for this debt; but liability against the sons is asserted upon the theory that they had no right to continue to- operate the mercantile business, and they therefore became personally responsible for the goods bought by them while so doing.\nThe correctness of this position may be conceded without liability following as the result of that concession. There was no purpose on the part of the sons to form any partnership, and the goods were not sold on the faith of their credit. The sale was to the J. A. Ford estate. These sons were not personally liable for the debts owed by their father at the time of his death, as they had no connection with his business. They were liable for goods bought without authority in the name of the estate. But they paid for those goods, and appellant company had no right \u2014 without consent or permission so to do \u2014 -to apply the payments made by the sons to a debt they did not owe and leave unextinguished a portion of the debt they did owe.\nAppellees ask judgment here for $115.41, the sum paid in excess of the bills bought by them. But they were not allowed this claim in the court below, and have not prosecuted a cross-appeal. Their contention concerning this excess is, therefore, not presented for review.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smiti-i, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Miller \u00a3 Yinglmg, for appellant.",
      "Brundidge \u00a3 Neelly, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ramey-Milburn Company v. Ford.\nOpinion delivered December 20, 1920.\n1. Executors and administrators \u2014 payments on unauthorized claims. \u2014 Where executors without authority in the will continued the testator\u2019s business and purchased goods from a grocer to whom the testator was indebted at time of his death, but paid for such goods, the creditor could not apply the payments\" to the debt existing at the testator\u2019s death and leave unextinguished a portion of the debt the executors owed.\n2. Executors and administrarors \u2014 personal liability. \u2014 Executors are liable for goods purchased in the name of the estate without authority.\n3. Appeal and error \u2014 -necessity of cross-appeal. \u2014 Appellee\u2019s claim not allowed by the trial court is not presented for review in the absence of a cross-appeal.\n\u2022 Appeal from \"White Circuit Court, J. M. Jackson, Judge;\naffirmed.\nMiller \u00a3 Yinglmg, for appellant.\nThis is not >a claim against the estate, hut, under Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 54, the sons were liable persnally by continuing to operate the mercantile business of their father. 19 Ark. 676; 61 Id. 414; 62 Id. 223. Administrator has no power to enlarge the liability of his intestate or bind the assets in his hands by any agreement of his. 10 Ark. 204; 18 Cyc. 247. This rule is approved in 65 Ark. 443; 61 Id. 410. See, also, 17 Ark. 571; 34 Id. 205. The court erred in finding for appellees.\nBrundidge \u00a3 Neelly, for appellees.\nThe indebtedness sued for is due appellant by the estate of J. A. Ford and not by them personally, and the court below adopted their contention. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 54. It was a claim against the estate. Even if it was a personal liability and they were responsible, appellees have overpaid the debt, and they should have judgment for $115.41."
  },
  "file_name": "0563-01",
  "first_page_order": 587,
  "last_page_order": 589
}