{
  "id": 8722817,
  "name": "Hill v. Hopkins",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. Hopkins",
  "decision_date": "1938-02-07",
  "docket_number": "4-4927",
  "first_page": "594",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 Ark. 594"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 3418,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.500188514851265e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44638683568038134
    },
    "sha256": "0df159451292076e647ca5a082d4a2cbc58e9dc7e2eb2e67934b4f025336b206",
    "simhash": "1:cb065598a304c8ec",
    "word_count": 585
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:53.579177+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Hill v. Hopkins."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GeifpiN Smith, C. J.\nThis appeal is from a decree of the Grant chancery court dismissing* appellant\u2019s complaint for want of equity.\nIt is alleg-ed that fraud was perpetrated by appel-lee in representing that a Packard automobile, owned by appellee\u2019s wife and traded to appellant for 80 acres of land, was a 1931 model when in fact it was a 19-29 model.\nAppellant testified that appellee, in sequence of certain correspondence, brought the car to her home, where a deal was consummated on September 26, 1936. Appellant\u2019s husband, as her agent, acted with her in making the exchange.\nDuring the latter part of December appellant ascertained that certain parts ordered for a 1931 model Packard would not fit the car she received, but that 1929 parts were suitable. In this manner the alleged fraud was discovered.\nA postal card dated January 18, 1937, was sent to appellee by appellant\u2019s husband, which reads: \u201cWant to order parts for Packard sedan bought by Mrs. Hill of you, and get license. Please write what model this car is, and state how to go about ordering parts and getting license.\u201d\nComplaint was filed February 3, 1937. Appellant asked that the deed he cancelled; that she\"h'\u00e1ve $100 to compensate for money spent in repairing ;%he car;>!and that a lien be declared on the car for 'the $100) item; or, in the alternative, if cancellation of' the deed he not ordered, that she have judgment for $1,000.\nAppellee moved to quash service on the ground that summons was served in Pulaski county. The motion was overruled and appellee answered, saving exceptions. Appellee did not offer any testimony.\nFor reversal it is urged: (1) That the court erred in dismissing the complaint for want of equity; (2) that the court erred in refusing to allow R. W. Springer to testify as an expert; (3) that it was error not to permit J. W. Hill to testify as to values sh\u2019own in the \u201cblue hook;\u201d and (4) that the court erred in overruling appellant\u2019s request for additional time for the procurement of testimony.\nAppellant\u2019s complaint was properly dismissed. Rescission of the contract was asked, with cancellation of the deed, hut appellant did not offer to return the automobile. She could have elected to retain the property and sue for damages. In that election no tender of return would have been necessary. But she did not do this.\nAppellee was a citizen of Pulaski county and could not he required to answer for damages on summons issuing from the Grant chancery court in the circumstances here shown.\nRescission, and cancellation of the deed, being in the nature of a proceeding in rem, could have been decreed, the land being in Grant county.\nAppellee\u2019s motion to quash service should have been granted for all purposes other than rescission and its incidences. Thereafter, when it was shown by appellant\u2019s testimony, or by testimony offered in her behalf, that no offer had been made to return the automobile, the complaint was subject to dismissal for want of equity.\n\"While the car was in appellant\u2019s possession the upholstery,-was badly damaged by a dog and its value was in other respects impaired by the acts of appellant\u2019s husband in using the car as a conveyance of wild hogs. .\nIn the view we have taken it becomes unnecessary to discuss assignments 2, 3, and 4.\nThe decree is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GeifpiN Smith, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas E. Toler, for appellant.",
      "Ernest Briner, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hill v. Hopkins.\n4-4927\nOpinion delivered February 7, 1938.\nThomas E. Toler, for appellant.\nErnest Briner, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0594-01",
  "first_page_order": 610,
  "last_page_order": 612
}