{ "id": 1355621, "name": "Boyce v. Goodwin", "name_abbreviation": "Boyce v. Goodwin", "decision_date": "1923-04-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "475", "last_page": "477", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "158 Ark. 475" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "171 S. W. 136", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "112 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1538814 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/112/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 Ark. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1347090 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/105/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Ark. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1513803 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/90/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1524479 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/84/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ark. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717956 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/74/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1504004 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Ark. 199", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728642 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/4/0199-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ark. 242", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1564883 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/117/0242-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 Ark. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "43 Ark. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1894510 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/43/0337-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ark. 337", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1894510 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/43/0337-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 294, "char_count": 4500, "ocr_confidence": 0.489, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.05116360065779897 }, "sha256": "cd1730b963a8fa389cf2654d40773cbd16134eca11c16759f8dfced1c865315f", "simhash": "1:17438c2248605e53", "word_count": 785 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:11.466089+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Boyce v. Goodwin." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hart, J.,\n(after stating the facts). The judgment of the chancery court was correct. As stated in Amis v. Conner, 43 Ark. 337, he who offers a reward has the right to prescribe any terms he may see fit, and these terms must be complied with before any contract arises between him and the claimant.\nThe plaintiff seeks to reverse the judgment upon the ground that he was entitled to a reward of $35 for each of the three persons convicted. The record shows that the three persons were convicted of cutting the same tree at the same time. The reward was for information resulting in the arrest and conviction of any one cutting trees on the land of Goodwin. The word, \u201cany one,\u201d in the sense it was used, included all persons participating in the same act. The word frequently extends to an indefinite number of persons included in the same transaction. Here the three persons were engaged in cutting the same tree at the same time, and we think, when the reward is construed as an entirety, the word \u201cany one\u201d was intended to include all who might participate in the same act of trespass.\nThe decree is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hart, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Culbert L. Pearce, for appellant.", "Brvmdidge (& Neelly, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Boyce v. Goodwin.\nOpinion delivered April 30, 1923.\n1. Rewards \u2014 conditions.\u2014He who offers a reward has the right to prescribe any terms he sees fit, and these terms must be complied with before any contract arises between him and the claimant.\n2. Rewards \u2014 AMOUNT.'\u2014Where defendant offered a reward of $35 \u201cfor information resulting in the arrest and conviction of any one cutting trees\u201d on his land, and plaintiff discovered three men cutting the same trees on defendant\u2019s land, and reported this fact to defendant\u2019s agent, thereby causing the arrest and conviction of the three men, the words \u201cany one\u201d were used to mean all persons participating in the same act, and plaintiff was entitled to recover only $35.\nAppeal from White Chancery Court; John E. Martineauj Chancellor;\naffirmed.\nSTATEMENT OF FACTS.\nC. L. Boyce sued C. L. Goodwin to recover a reward offered for information resulting in the arrest and eonviction. of - any one cutting trees on the land of the defendant. The offer of the reward is as follows:\n\u201cAll persons, including hunters, are prohibited from cutting any trees on this land under any condition, and will be prosecuted for so doing, when caught.\n\u201c$35 Reward\n\u201cFor information resulting in the arrest and conviction of any one cutting trees on this land.\n\u201cC: L. Goodwin, Owner.\u201d\nOn Feb. 10, 1922, O. L. Boyce discovered three men engaged in unlawfully cutting timber on the land of C. L. Goodwin. He reported the matter to an agent of Goodwin, and the offenders were arrested, tried, and convicted. No appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction. The plaintiff asked for judgment in the sum of $105 against the defendant. The defendant tendered the sum of $35 to the plaintiff, and, upon his refusal to accept it, tendered the amount in court. In his answer, the defendant further alleged that the three parties were engaged-in cutting the same trees, and that they were tried and convicted together.\nThe proof corresponded with the pleadings, and the court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $35.\nThe plaintiff has duly prosecuted an appeal to this court.\nCulbert L. Pearce, for appellant.\nAn offer of reward becomes a binding contract when accepted and service performed. Clark on Contracts, 47; 23 R. O. L. 1114; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 945. One offering reward has right to prescribe terms and .conditions, which cannot be changed after service rendered. 43 Ark. 337; 117 Ark. 243; 8 Ann. Cas. 860, note; 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 942, 952, 955; 23 R. C. L. 1115, 1128, 1129. If contract not understood alike by parties, it is subject to construction by the court. 24 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law, 946. \u2018\u2018 Any one77 defined: Bouvier\u2019s Law Dictionary; Webster\u2019s International Dictionary; 1 Words & Phrases, 412,2nd Series; 216 Ann. Cas., 1916-E, note; State ex rel. v. Kansas. City; see Chambers v. Ogle, 117 Ark. 242. In ease of doubt, rule requires construction most favorable to promisee. 6 R. \u20ac. L. i854; 4 Ark. 199; 73 Ark. 338; 74 Ark. 41; 84 Ark. 431; 90 Ark. 88; 105 Ark. 518; 112 Ark. 1; 171 S. W. 136.\nBrvmdidge (& Neelly, for appellee.\nThe reward of $35 was offered for the arrest and conviction of \u201cany one cutting trees on this land.\u201d Definition of \u201cany one,\u201d Webster\u2019s Unabridged Dictionary; 3 C. J. 249. Of course appellant cannot recover a reward for each of the three persons convicted of cutting one tree at the same time." }, "file_name": "0475-01", "first_page_order": 499, "last_page_order": 501 }