{
  "id": 8719873,
  "name": "The Cue Ball Company v. East Arkansas Lumber Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cue Ball Co. v. East Arkansas Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1937-06-14",
  "docket_number": "4-4690",
  "first_page": "251",
  "last_page": "252",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "194 Ark. 251"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "288 S. W. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 Ark. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1407986
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/172/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S. W. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ark. 454",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1513840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/90/0454-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2572,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.502,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20851177037734633
    },
    "sha256": "95a860ee9d15e1723f91db3fac8b88d6923250b7a589b374f04ea8ee637ef238",
    "simhash": "1:33df56509f3bf312",
    "word_count": 437
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:46.346325+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Cue Ball Company v. East Arkansas Lumber Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nAppellee sued appellant in August, 1932, on an account. An affidavit, in proper form, was made for an attachment, upon which a writ of attachment was levied upon certain personal property belonging to appellant. -Before the final trial of the cause an officer of appellee, a corporation, sold the personal property for the sum of $300. \u25a0\nNumerous motions were filed and orders made, which we find it unnecessary to set out in this opinion, as the cause was finally submitted on a stipulation signed by the parties. We extract from it the following relevant and controlling recitals. Appellant was at that time indebted to appellee in the sum of $43.85, and it was agreed that judgment therefor might be entered in ap-pellee\u2019s favor. This balance was arrived at by crediting on the debt the $300 proceeds of the sale of the personal property.\nIn this stipulation it was agreed that \u201c* * * The only issues now to be tried in this ease are: First: Whs the attachment lawful and can it be sustained? Second: The legal measure of damages sustained by the Cue Ball Company, a corporation, on account of the taking and disposing of the property under the attachment in event the original attachment should not be sustained, agreed to be the value of the property so taken at the time of taking.\u201d There had been previously filed in the case a motion to sustain the attachment \u201cFor the reason that no controverting affidavit denying the statement of the affidavit upon which the attachment was issued has been filed by the defendant.\u201d\nThe court rendered judgment for $43.85, for the reason that the parties had stipulated that this should be done. The court sustained the attachment because no controverting affidavit was filed nor did the answer which was verified controvert the alleged grounds for attachment. The latter action was taken pursuant to the provisions of \u00a7 568, of Crawford & Moses\u2019 Digest, which reads as follows: \u201cIf judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff, and no affidavit or answer, verified by oath, by the defendant filed, denying the statements of the affidavit upon which the attachment was issued, or motion made to discharge it, the court shall sustain the attachment.\u201d Weibel v. Beakley, 90 Ark. 454, 119 S. W. 657; Ford v. Wilson, 172 Ark. 335, 288 S. W. 712.\nThe judgment is, therefore, correct, and must be affirmed. It is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. D. Longstrelh, J. A. Watlcins and F. W. A. Eier-\u25a0mann, for appellant.",
      "S. Hubert Mayes, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Cue Ball Company v. East Arkansas Lumber Company.\n4-4690\nOpinion delivered June 14, 1937.\nO. D. Longstrelh, J. A. Watlcins and F. W. A. Eier-\u25a0mann, for appellant.\nS. Hubert Mayes, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0251-01",
  "first_page_order": 269,
  "last_page_order": 270
}