{
  "id": 8720776,
  "name": "Garrett v. Edwards",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garrett v. Edwards",
  "decision_date": "1925-03-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "243",
  "last_page": "245",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 Ark. 243"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "146 Ark. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1585027
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/146/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 Ark. 336",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1586150
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/145/0336-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 Ark. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1553191
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/125/0141-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "98 Ark. 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1316100
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/98/0235-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 211,
    "char_count": 3008,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.441,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0678041250728427e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5590167612088581
    },
    "sha256": "75dfe8018136ae56b00f631981ebbf6718c984fbcfc1331c73ffa704cd662141",
    "simhash": "1:7f8b1368ed00e428",
    "word_count": 493
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:28.689459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Garrett v. Edwards."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellee brought an action of unlawful detainer to recover from appellants the\u25a0 possession of. a. lot in the town of Blackwell, which he alleged that he had rented them on November 10, 1922, for a monthly rental of $10, to be paid at the end of each month; that default, was made in the payment of'the rents; and a notice in writing'to-vacate was served on defendants. Judgment for-rents and possession was^prayed.\nDefendants filed an answer .admitting the tenancy,, but alleging the fact to be that, shortly after :they went, into possession of ,tbe property, they were notified' by..\u25a0 Maus and.Berkemeyer, trading'and doing business as Maus & Berkemeyer, that they were the owners of the property and were entitled to .the refits; that thereafter, defendants deposited the rents in a -bank, awaiting* a settlement of the question as to- who was entitled, to- the rents. There was a prayer that Maus & Berkemeyer be made parties defendant and required to litigate with plaintiff the question of ownership -of the rents.\nA demurrer was -sustained to this answer, and, as defendants declined to plead further, judgment was pronounced .on the pleadings, in favor of the plaintiff.\nThe demurrer to the answer was properly sustained. In the case of Dunlap v. Moose, 98 Ark. 235, it was said: \u201cThe action of unlawful detainer is only-to decide the right to the immediate possession of lands and ten\u00e9-ments, and fiot to determine the right or titl\u00e9 of the parties to of in' th\u00e9m. \u2019 A tenant 'cannot dispute the title, of . his-landlord, while he remains in possession under him, nor, acquire possession from the landlord by lease and then dispute his title, but must first surrender possession and bring his action.\u201d See also Burton v. Gorman, 125 Ark. 141; Montgomery v. Massey, 145 Ark. 336; Morris v. Griffin, 146 Ark. 439.\nThe judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E.dward Gordon, f or appellant.",
      "Eades dt Eddy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Garrett v. Edwards.\nOpinion delivered March 16, 1925.\n1. Landlord and tenant \u2014 purpose op unlawpul detainer action. : \u2014 The action of unlawful detainer merely decides the right to the immediate possession of lands and tenements, and not the right or title of the parties to or in them.\n2. Landlord and tenant \u2014 estoppel.\u2014A tenant cannot. dispute the title of his landlord -while he remains in possession under him, nor acquire possession from the landlord by lease and then dispute his title, but must first surrender possession.\n3. Landlord and tenant \u2014 unlawful detainer \u2014 answer.\u2014Where a landlord sued for possession', an answer of the tenant that after he received possession certain third persons claimed to own the premises and rents, and that thereafter defendant deposited the. rents in a bank awaiting, settlement of the question of ownership of rents, with prayer that such third party ibe made defendant and required to litigate the question of ownership of rents', held demurrable.\nAppeal from Conway Circuit Court,- J. T. Bullock, Judge;\naffirmed.\nE.dward Gordon, f or appellant.\nEades dt Eddy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0243-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 263
}