{
  "id": 1428441,
  "name": "Middleton v. McCoy",
  "name_abbreviation": "Middleton v. McCoy",
  "decision_date": "1933-12-11",
  "docket_number": "4-3242",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "361",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 Ark. 359"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "145 S. W. 567",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 Ark. 473",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1351949
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/103/0473-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 S. W. 856",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 Ark. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1311122
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/101/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 S. W. 843",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ark. 149",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511814
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/91/0149-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 S. W. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 Ark. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1511784
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/91/0069-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S. W. 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 Ark. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1515229
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/89/0309-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 1795,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.512,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6005454372050263
    },
    "sha256": "0c3be16e9429c4dff3f9eab32dff259ebf951308784c49a8a8dc005b60aee3d9",
    "simhash": "1:ad5d783f40c4399f",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:11.517500+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Middleton v. McCoy."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Johnson, C. J.,\n(after stating the facts). If the chancellor\u2019s finding to the effect that the deed from T. CL McCoy to appellee was for a valuable consideration, and was not executed with the intent to cheat, hinder or defraud creditors, is not clearly against the. preponderance of the testimoity, this case must be affirmed. Cherry v. Brizzolara, 89 Ark. 309, 116 S. W. 668; Compagionette v. McArmick, 91 Ark. 69, 120 S. W. 400; Sullivan v. Winters, 91 Ark. 149, 120 S. W. 843; Lyons v. First National Bank, 101 Ark. 368, 142 S. W. 856; Kissire v. Plunkett-Jarrell Grocer Co., 103 Ark. 473, 145 S. W. 567.\nIt is stipulated by counsel that lot 14, block 2, Pinehurst Addition, was the homestead of T. G. McCoy at the time of the conveyance. Therefore, under the law, he could sell or give same away if he liked, and his creditors would have no right to complain. When the homestead is subtracted from the deed of T. Gr. McCoy, it leaves only lot 1, Bragg\u2019s Second Addition, which was sold for a consideration of $550. This is a valuable consideration. It is true the testimony tends to show that this lot was worth approximately $1,500, if sold on \u201creasonable terms,\u201d but it can not be\u2019certainly said that a conveyance was voluntary which carried an expressed consideration of this sum of money.\nSince this conveyance was not a voluntary one, no presumption of fraudulent intent attends its execution either in the grantors or grantee. Section 108, 12 R. C. L., Fraudulent Conveyances, pag\u2019e 594.\nWe conclude that the chancellor\u2019s finding is not clearly against the preponderance of the testimony, and its judgment should therefore be affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Johnson, C. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hays & Turner and Alonzo D. Camp, for appellant.",
      "Robert J. Brown, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Middleton v. McCoy.\n4-3242\nOpinion delivered December 11, 1933.\nHays & Turner and Alonzo D. Camp, for appellant.\nRobert J. Brown, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 379
}