{
  "id": 1361211,
  "name": "Satterfield v. Looper",
  "name_abbreviation": "Satterfield v. Looper",
  "decision_date": "1922-07-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "440",
  "last_page": "442",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 Ark. 440"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 4821,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.7376089919467184e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3594076334180101
    },
    "sha256": "b58b9baff17c65ce3286528aa2c6598e61e5f6d51c87daa590d04e21ee1d1a1f",
    "simhash": "1:b96ac010adc0d9e7",
    "word_count": 825
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:45:49.411494+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Satterfield v. Looper."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nAppellant owned a farm containing 154 acres of land in cultivation, and he rented it to one Haney for the year 1920, the rent to be payable in money at a certain price per acre. Haney sub-rented fifty-five acres of the land to appellee under a contract whereby appellee agreed to pay, as rent, certain shares of the corn and cotton. Haney failed to pay the rent to appellant, who instituted this action against appellee to recover the proportionate part of the rent due on the land sub-rented to appellee, according to the terms of the contract between appellant and Haney.\nThe defense made by appellee in the trial below was that, after the cron had become matured and a small portion of it gathered, appellant entered into a contract with him to accept all of the ungathered portion of the com and cotton in satisfaction of appellee\u2019s liability for rent, and that pursuant to that agreement he delivered the ungathered crop to appellant. This issue was tried out before the jury upon conflicting testimony, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee.\nThe court, in its charge to the jury, narrowed the issues down to the sole question concerning the alleged settlement between the parties by delivery of the ungathered portion of the crop.\nIt is contended, first, by appellant that there was no testimony to support the verdict on that issue, but we think there was testimony which was legally sufficient to support the verdict. It is true there are sharp conflicts in the testimony on this issue, but the verdict of the jury settled that conflict in favor of appellee\u2019s contention. Appellee testified positively that after a portion of the erop had been gathered he offered to turn over the balance of the crop \u2014 all the corn and cotton left in the field \u2014 to appellant in satisfaction of the rent, and that appellant accepted the proposition and agreed to have the crop gathered. His statement was that appellant first agreed to accept, as his rent, a share of the crop in accordance with appellee\u2019s contract with Haney, and that he (appellee) sold the crop to one George with the understanding that the latter was to comply with the agreement, but that about a week later George turned the crop back to him, and that he then turned it over to appellant, who agreed to accept it in satisfaction of the rent. Appellant denies this, but it was a question for the jury to determine. There was another witness who corroborated appellee by testifying that appellant tried to hire him to pick appellee\u2019s cotton.\nIt is next contended that there was no consideration for this agreement, and that, even if it was made, it did \u25a0 not operate as a satisfaction of appellant\u2019s claim for rent. This contention is not sound, for the reason that there was- no contractual relation between appellant and appellee; appellee was merely liable for the rent by virtue of the statute, which provides that in ease of sub-renting of lands the occupant shall be responsible for the rent of such part of the lands as are cultivated or occupied by him. Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, \u00a7 6982. There fore the 'contract of settlement by delivery of the crop constituted a new undertaking on sufficient consideration for the settlement of the liability. The consideration was the delivery of the crops, and the evidence was sufficient to .show that there was such a delivery.\nFinally, it is contended that the court erred in giving an instruction on the subject of burden of proof, but the motion for a new trial does not contain an assignment of error on that ground. The instruction was objected to when given, but the exception was not preserved by proper assignment in the motion for a new trial.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John M. Parker, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Satterfield v. Looper.\nOpinion delivered July 10, 1922.\n1. Compromise and settlement \u2014 sufficiency of evidence. \u2014 In an action by a landlord to recover from the sublessee a portion of the rent owing from the original lessee for the land occupied by the sublessee, evidence held to sustain finding that the landlord accepted a portion of the crops grown on the premises in satisfaction of the sublessee\u2019s portion of the rent.\n2. Compromise and settlement \u2014 consideration.\u2014Delivery to the landlord by the sublessee of a portion of the crop grown on the land occupied by the sublessee was sufficient consideration for the landlord\u2019s agreement to accept the crops in full satisfaction of the rent due to him by the sublessee.\n3. Appeal and error \u2014 assignment of error \u2014 motion for new trial. \u2014 A contention of error in giving an instruction does not require a reversal where the motion for new trial did not contain an assignment of error on that ground, although the instruction was objected to.\nAppeal from Yell Circuit Court, Danville District; A. B. Priddy, Judge;\naffirmed.\nJohn M. Parker, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0440-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 466
}