{
  "id": 8721172,
  "name": "Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Company v. Lammers",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Co. v. Lammers",
  "decision_date": "1930-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "334",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "181 Ark. 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 261,
    "char_count": 4121,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32692156955868856
    },
    "sha256": "eb44b345c83e06d086b861172c2d5c9d2ed8e9fc1e24961f0a9e4d52658471c6",
    "simhash": "1:0a8b797e2d2a5656",
    "word_count": 612
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:27:21.430883+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Company v. Lammers."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Humphreys, J.\nAppellant brought suit against J. B. Blackstone in the chancery court of Arkansas County, Southern District, to foreclose a second mortgage on a small tract of land given to secure an indebtedness of about $700 for goods and merchandise, and, deeming the mortgage security insufficient, filed an affidavit for a vendor\u2019s lien on the stock of goods, attachment and bond for attachment, and caused a writ of attachment to be issued and levied upon the stock of goods owned by Blackstone which was located in a building owned by appellee. The building was retained by the sheriff or receiver until the goods were sold, the rent thereon amounting to $305, for which amount appellee filed a claim in the attachment proceeding as follows:\n\u201c\u25a0Statement of Intervener, Appellee Here,\nA. E. Lammers.\n\u201cStatement of amount due on 12-18-28.\n\u201cTo Albert Lammers, of Stuttgart, Ark.\n\u201cBy Wm. B. Moore Dry Goods Company, of Memphis, Tennessee.-\n\u201cFor amount of rental on store building, located at 225 North Main Street, Stuttgart, Arkansas, occupied by J. B. Blackstone, but which was taken possession of by you on June 15,1928, under a court foreclosure order:\nRental for June, 1928......................................................$25.00\nRental for July, 1928 ......................................................... 50.00\nRental for August, 1928 ............................................... 50.00\nRental for September, 1928 .................-................ 50.00\nRental for October, 1928...................................-........... 50.00\nRental for November, 1928 ...................................... 50.00\nRental for December, 1928 ........................................ 50.00\nRental (to 12-18-28) ...................................................... 30.00\nTotal...................................................................................$305.00\n\u201cNote.\n\u201cInterest is due on this amount at the rate of 8 per cent, per annum as rental is payable monthly in advance.\n\u201cAlbert Lammers.\n\u201cSubscribed and sworn to before me this 3d day of June, 1929:\n\u201c J. E. Ray, Notary Public.\n\u201cMy commission expires 2-10-1930.\u201d\nUpon a hearing of the intervention, the trial court made a finding that appellant retained the building in question through its receiver until the rent thereon amounted to $305, and rendered a .judgment in favor of appellee against appellant for said amount, from which is this appeal. The testimony introduced on the hearing of the intervention was not incorporated in the transcript on appeal, hence appellant relies for a reversal of the judgment upon alleged error apparent on the face of the record. Appellant contends that appellee\u2019s exclusive and only remedy was to present his claim for rents to the sheriff, and for the sheriff in turn to ask that the claim be taxed as costs. In support of the contention it cites \u00a7 523 uf Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, which provides:\n\u201cThe sheriff or other officer shall be allowed by the court necessary expense of keeping the attached property to be paid by the plaintiff, and taxed in the costs.\u201d\nThe account for rent filed by appellee contained the statement that appellant took possession of the building on June 15,1928, and the itemized statement for the rents indicates that possession of the building* was retained until the 18th day of December, 1928. The court found that it retained possession thereof during this time through its receiver. This court on appeal must presume that the testimony adduced on the hearing, and omitted from the record, supported the finding of the court. If it did, the court was warranted in treating the intervention as a motion to tax the costs, either on the retention of the building by the sheriff or receiver. It may have appeared from the testimony that the sheriff or receiver retained the building under the direction of the appellant. In this view the proceeding adopted constituted a substantial compliance with the statute.\nNo error appearing, the decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. F. Elms, for appellant.",
      "Bay S Bay, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wm. R. Moore Dry Goods Company v. Lammers.\nOpinion delivered March 17, 1930.\nM. F. Elms, for appellant.\nBay S Bay, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0334-01",
  "first_page_order": 352,
  "last_page_order": 354
}