{
  "id": 8720823,
  "name": "Beloate v. Carruthers Motor Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Beloate v. Carruthers Motor Co.",
  "decision_date": "1925-03-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "245",
  "last_page": "247",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "168 Ark. 245"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 5537,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.478,
    "sha256": "89aaab3b30134616eafb2c2c0e10fb989d9de6c4be8fe3a66c0a3c29d3d7e6e9",
    "simhash": "1:8ae2fd7287789056",
    "word_count": 959
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:28.689459+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Beloate v. Carruthers Motor Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellant sued appellee for the alleged, conversion of an automobile, delivered' to appellee in February, 1922, to be repaired, and of which appellee retained possession until May, 1923.\nOn May 26,1923, appellant delivered to appellee the following letter:\n\u201cWalnut Ridge, Ark., May 26, 1923. \u201cCarruthers Motor Co., Walnut Ridge, Ark.\n\u2018 \u2018 Owing to the fact that you have permitted certain parts of the engine and two casings, rims and other parts to be removed from my Paige car, engine No. 7D687Q\u00cd,, which was delivered to you in February, 1922, for repairs, I liave 'been unable to get same removed by other garage men for repairs.\n\u201cThis is to notify yon to place said oar in the condition it was when you received it 'by June 10, or I will take it that you desire to convert same, and will sue you for the value of the car.\u201d\nAfter the expiration of the time limited by the letter this suit was brought.\nAppellant asked two instructions, the first of which directed the jury to return a verdict in his favor for the value of the automobile at the time it was delivered to appellee, and the other instruction was to the same effect substantially, only it required the jury to. find, that possession of the car was. not delivered to. appellant within the time limited in the letter set out- above:\nThe testimony on behalf of appellant was to the effect that appellee kept his car without excuse and without repairing it, .and failed to repair or return it after repeated requests so to do. The testimony on behalf of appellee was to the effect that the car was about worn out. when it was delivered at the garage for repairs, such repairs were made as were authorized, and .appellant was advised of that fact, and was further advised that the car was ready for delivery, with the exception that it needed casings and a new battery, and that, when the battery was furnished, the car was \u201cready to be tuned up and to go, \u2019 \u2019 and, according to the testimony in appel-lee\u2019s behalf, appellant was responsible for the delay.\nThere was' testimony -on the part of appellant that certain parts of the car had been removed or lost; but appellee was not responsible for this loss, according to the testimony in its behalf.\nEach party presented an account against the other, one for repairs to the car, the other for professional services.\nThe issue of facts thus raised was submitted in an instruction reading as follows: \u201cThe burden is bn the defendant to establish the items of his cross-complaint, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to establish the value of his services. As to the possession of the car in this action or as to the value of it, the jury in this case has nothing to do with that. There is nothing in this lawsuit but for you to try to strike a balance between these two accounts\u25a0 under the evidence in the case.\u201d\nIt appears from this instruction that the.court refused to -submit the question whether there had been a conversion of the car; indeed, the court.stated to the jury that the testimony presented no such question, and the only question submitted to or passed upon by the jury was the state of the account between the parties. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the appellee for $25, and this verdict is conclusive of the fact that the sum due defendant for repairs exceeded the sum due plaintiff for professional -services by $25. . \u2022\nUnder the judgment pronounced on this verdict appellant would have been entitled to the possession of the car by paying the sum found due appellee for work done on it.\nWe think the court properly refused to submit the -question of conversion of the car to the jnry. The car may have been retained by appellee for an unreasonable length of time, although, as we have said, the testimony on appellee\u2019s part tended to excuse this delay. ' But, at any rate, there is no question of conversion in the case. Appellant\u2019s ownership of the car was never questioned, and his right to its possession would apparently not have been questioned, had appellee\u2019s charges been paid. The verdict of the jury is conclusive of the fact that-there were charges which should have been paid, and' appellee Was entitled to a lien on the car'so long as these charges remained unpaid. Section 6866,'U. & M-. Digest; \" ~\nIt will-be observed that, in the letter set out above, \u25a0Ihere was ho tender by' appellant - of \u25a0 th\u00e9 charges, nor, indeed, was there any reference to them, and we think the court below'w-as correct in holding that the mere 'failure to surrender the car within the tim\u00e9 liinited' for that purpose did not constitute\" a -conversion ;of-'it.- -f\nd The judgment' of the court' below is ' therefore affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. P. Smith, for appellant.",
      "H. L. Ponder, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Beloate v. Carruthers Motor Company.\nOpinion delivered March 16, 1925.\n1. TROVER AND CONVERSION \u2014 MEN OP AUTOMOBILE REPAIRMAN. \u2014 In a suit by the owner of an automobile against a repairman, in which each .presented \u25a0 an account against the other, plaintiff for1 professional services and defendant for repairs- to the automobile, since defendant was entitled to a lien on the car for repairs, under Crawford & Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 6866, the court properly refused to submit the question of conversion.\n2. Trover and conversion \u2014 retention of automobile for repair charges. \u2014 An automobile repairman was not guilty of conversion in retaining a car on which he had made repairs where the owner failed to pay or tender his charges.\nAppeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Eastern District ; Dene 3. Coleman, Judge;\naffirmed.\nW. P. Smith, for appellant.\nH. L. Ponder, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0245-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 265
}