{
  "id": 1357180,
  "name": "Martin v. Stratton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Martin v. Stratton",
  "decision_date": "1923-03-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "513",
  "last_page": "515",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "157 Ark. 513"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "94 Ark. 370",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1545462
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/94/0370-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark. 378",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913357
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0378-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ark. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1309062
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/49/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ark. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 Ark. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1491115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/80/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 Ark. 301",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1324638
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/57/0301-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 4159,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.54292549810138e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40127706287123305
    },
    "sha256": "67a244a1ba1f71bad46efacb748b789e924625075de3bbb33c95d368f0d23ea6",
    "simhash": "1:2bceadab34f13a5a",
    "word_count": 691
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:48:13.496195+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Martin v. Stratton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nGrowing out of an alleged breach of contract between appellant, as landlord, and appellee, J. D. Stratton, as tenant, and an alleged unlawful attack upon 'appellant by appellee, appellant brought suit against appellee, in the White County Circuit Court, to recover possession of the land rented to him, damages for breach thereof, and rents, and for damages to his person inflicted by a gunshot fired by .appellee. It was alleged, in substance, in the complaint: first, that appellant rented 160 acres of land in said county to said appellee, under written contract, for three years, beginning January 1, 1919, and ending December 31, 1922; that the contract provided for J. A. Stratton to set out and cultivate eight acres in strawberries and ten acres in cotton; that he should pay appellant one-half the net proceeds of the berry crop in 1920 and 1921, in part payment of rent, and, in further payment thereof, to deliver appellant one-half of the lint cotton and seed, after paying for ginning same; that appellee failed to plant any cotton, to appellant\u2019s damage in the sum of $200, and failed to divide the net proceeds of the berry crop in 1920, to his damage in the sum of $250; second, that appellee came upon appellant\u2019s premises and unlawfully, maliciously, and feloniously shot him, to his injury in the sum of $10,000.\nIt was further alleged that said appellee\u2019s codefendant was brought upon the rented land to unlawfully assist him in holding the possession thereof, and was a trespasser. . .\nAppellees filed a demurrer to the .complaint upon the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against them.\nThe court sustained the demurrer, and dismissed appellant\u2019s complaint, over his objection and exception, from which is this appeal.\nThe only question presented by the appeal for determination is whether the complaint states a cause of action. It is provided by statute in this State that a failure to pay rent when due, after three days \u2019 written notice to quit, shall constitute an unlawful detainer, justifying an action by the landowner against the tenant for the possession of the premises. Sec. 4838, Crawford & Moses \u2019 Digest. This is true, regardless of whether the rental contract or lease makes a failure to pay rent a ground of forfeiture. Parker v. Geary, 57 Ark. 301. The facts alleged in the complaint meet all the statutory requirements of an action for unlawful detainer. The court erred therefore in sustaining the demurrer.\n.An attempt was made to join an action sounding in tort with an action for unlawful detainer, but this was not ground for demurrer. This error should have been met by a motion to strike the action improperly joined, or to require appellant to elect as between the actions pleaded. Jett v. Theo Maxfield Co., 80 Ark. 167.\nFor the error indicated the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the complaint.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. N. Rachels, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Martin v. Stratton.\nOpinion delivered March 12, 1923.\n1, Landlord and tenant \u2014 recovery of land \u2014 sufficiency of' complaint. \u2014 Under Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 4838, providing that a failure to pay rent when due after three days\u2019 written notice to quit, shall constitute an unlawful detainer, justifying an action for possession of the premises, a complaint alleging a failure of the tenant to pay rent as agreed was not demurrable.\n2. Pleading \u2014 misjoinder of causes. \u2014 A complaint to recover possession of leased premises and for damages for wounding plaintiff was not demurrable because joining an action for unlawful detainer with one sounding in tort, since the error could . have been met by a motion to strike the action improperly joined or to require appellant to elect between the two causes of action.\nAppeal from White Circuit Court; J. M. Jackson, Judge;\nreversed.\nJ. N. Rachels, for appellant.\nThree causes of action stated. Requisites of complaint, \u00a7\u00a7 1187 third division, and \u00a7 1188, Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest. 130 Ark. 499. Objections should have been raised by motion to make more definite instead of demurrer. 49 Ark. 277; 52 Ark. 378; 94 Ark. 370.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0513-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 537
}