{
  "id": 8718207,
  "name": "Empire Petroleum Company v. Southern Pipe Line Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Empire Petroleum Co. v. Southern Pipe Line Co.",
  "decision_date": "1927-05-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "33",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "174 Ark. 33"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3432,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4361435743937195
    },
    "sha256": "ae029f91cd17d91e4f4c6c9cd7749887cb23655856fa6a708cc77030550b8b53",
    "simhash": "1:2f2b5e0210f8cf37",
    "word_count": 587
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:30.257148+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Empire Petroleum Company v. Southern Pipe Line Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellee, successor to the Crusader Pipe Line. Company, brought suit against appellants in ike Second Division of tlio circuit court of Union County to recover $2,289.88 alleged to be due it under written contract for tlie taxes of 1924 on personal and real property in Ouachita County, Arkansas, which it agreed to purchase from appellants on August 28, 1924, and which was turned over to it the first of September following. The third paragraph of the contract, which was set out and made a part of the complaint, is as follows:\n\u201cThird. With reference to the taxes on all property which we are selling you, being both oil of the Empire Petroleum Company and real estate and personal property of the Empire Pipe Line Company. We agree that we will pay our pro-rata part' of this year\u2019s taxes, i. e., when these taxes are due, about January 1, 1925, you will pay same and bill us for our portion according to the pro-rata part of the current year during which this property'was in our possession. The date from which this reckoning shall be made will be the date on which the property in question is actually turned over to you.\u201d -\nIt was alleged in the complaint that the taxes upon the property amounted to $3,431.31, and that, after proper demand, appellants refused to reimburse appel-lee for two-thirds of said taxes.\nAppellants filed a demurrer to the complaint, which was overruled by the court, whereupon they declined to plead further, and judgment was rendered against them for the amount claimed, from which is this appeal.\nThe demurrer was overruled and the judgment rendered upon the theory that the phrase \u201ccurrent year\u201d used in the contract had reference to the calendar year 1924, and, as the property was delivered on September 1 of that year, appellants owed appellee two-thirds of the amount paid in 1925 for the taxes of 1924.\nAppellants contend for a reversal of the judgment upon the ground that the term \u201ccurrent year\u201d in the. contract had reference to the \u201cfiscal\u201d or \u201ctax year,\u201d during which the.1924 taxes were'to be expended to cover the cost of Government. We do not think the \u201ctax year\u201d in Arkansas is the criterion or key by which the third paragraph in the contract is to be construed. The taxes which were to become due on January 1,1925, were the taxes about which the parties were contracting\u2019 and the pro-rata part of which each was to pay; The contract specifies in unambiguous language that the proportionate part of the year\u2019s taxes which each must pay shall he determined by the pro-rata part of the current year during which the property was in their respective possessions, meaning, of course, the pro-rata part of the year in which the contract was made. The word \u201ccurrent\u201d is defined in Webster\u2019s Dictionary, in part, as follows: \u201cNow passing, as time, or pertaining to the present time, as the current month; the current number of a periodical.\u201d Appellants had the possession of the property from January 1, 1924, until September 1 of the same year, and appellee had possession thereof from September 1 to December 31 of the same year, so it follows that the court was correct in adjudging that appellants should pay two-thirds of the taxes.\nNo error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Finley, Hayes McCoy and Warren T. Spies. for appellant.",
      "Mahony, Yocum & Saye, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Empire Petroleum Company v. Southern Pipe Line Company.\nOpinion delivered May 16, 1927.\nJ. W. Finley, Hayes McCoy and Warren T. Spies. for appellant.\nMahony, Yocum & Saye, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0033-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 53
}