{
  "id": 1481789,
  "name": "Arkansas Fuel Oil Company v. Westbrook",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Fuel Oil Co. v. Westbrook",
  "decision_date": "1944-06-05",
  "docket_number": "4-7367",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "396",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ark. 392"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "180 S.W.2d 826"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 495,
    "char_count": 7882,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "sha256": "e940a8447bf528e0ea7c8eb1d8f71a8737bdfc46a80e713bda92bed40a7c7120",
    "simhash": "1:a2d1d23c2a6f48b2",
    "word_count": 1310
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:39.394631+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Arkansas Fuel Oil Company v. Westbrook."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nWalter Westbrook, by contract made in December 1937, became retail distributing agent for Arkansas Fuel Oil Company.\nJudgment for $442.96 was rendered against West-brook February 24, 1941. Complaint upon wbicb that judgment was based alleged continuous indebtedness by open account, approximate amount of which was $800 January 26, 1938. A year later Westbrook\u2019s resignation was requested.\nTbe litigation resulting in tbis appeal was begun December 21, 1942, when tbe Company filed .suit against Westbrook and bis wife, Wincie; also against J. W. Bagley and bis wife, Eugenia, and others. It was alleged that Walter bad fraudulently disposed of assets, tbe act having tbe effect of rendering him insolvent. Specifically, it was charged that tbe judgment debtor bad conveyed to tbe Bagleys three lots in tbe City of Nashville, Arkansas, and that tbe Bagleys bad thereupon conveyed to Mrs. Westbrook. Walter\u2019s deed was dated January 26, 1938, the recited consideration being $850. Tbe following day tbe Bagleys conveyed to Mrs. Westbrook for, prima facie, $850.\nIn addition to bis duties as distributor, Westbrook operated a filling station where be sold tbe Company\u2019s products at retail. Bagley bad been Westbrook\u2019s employe from 1933 to 1936. After 1936 be rented from West-brook and operated a filling station on tbe lots wbicb form tbe subject-matter of tbis suit, and was so renting in January 1938.\nBagley denied there was an agreement that after receiving the Westbrook deed there should be reconveyance to Westbrook or bis wife. He testified that consideration for the transaction of January 26 was $1,000 \u2014not $850 as shown by tbe deed. Explanation was that Walter owed him $150. Actual payment was \u201c. . . part cash and part checks- \u2014 I don\u2019t remember bow much cash and bow much checks.\u201d\nOn cross-examination Walter insisted that be paid $500 in cash and $350 in checks, \u2014 \u201cor tbe other way; one of the two \u2014 it .was about half and half. He never did cash the check; I tore it up.\u201d\nBagley testified that following the purchase on January 26th, Walter appeared at the station early the next morning and told him Mrs. Westbrook wanted the property for a building place. \u2014 \u201cHe talked on about it and just wondered if I would cancel the deed and sell it to him or to her: any way to get it back in her hands so she would be satisfied.\u201d Bagley says that he, being anxious to accommodate, and not wanting to have trouble \u201cbetween the families,\u201d agreed to make the deed to Mrs. Westbrook. . \u2018\nWalter Westbrook\u2019s version is that the first transaction was Iona fide, that it was a \u201clegal sale.\u201d He also contends that the account on which judgment was rendered was his personal obligation as distinguished from an obligation as distributor. The difference, he said, was that in January, 1939, he owed the Company for charges made to him personally representing supplies received at the filling station. His line of credit at the station was $800. \u2014 \u201cA year or two later they took judgment. \u201d '\n\u25a0 Mrs. Westbrook testified she had property of her own and was not accountable to her husband for certain inherited funds. After joining Walter in sale of the lots to the Bagleys she \u201cstudied about it all night\u201d and came to the conclusion she would repurchase, if possible. When told, as a witness, Bagley had testified that at the time the property was deeded back \u201c. . he (Bagley) paid Walter the same checks and money he had received the day before,\u201d her answer was, \u201cWell, possibly so; possibly some checks and some money. I don\u2019t know just exactly what the transaction was between Walter and Mr. Bagley. I lmow my part of it: . . . I paid $850 in cash. \u2019 \u2019\nIf it be conceded that Walter Westbrook did not owe the oil company on his accoujit as distributor, evidence is convincing that he had been continuously in arrears on the filling station account. His own testimonjr was that when discharged (January, 1939) he owed the Company a personal account, the amount being $405, and \u201c. . . a year or two later they took judgment for it. \u2019 \u2019\nWestbrook also testified that those who purchased from'the Company through the distributor agency had individual lines of credit with the Company, and these accounts were not charged to him.\nIn April, 1937, the Company wrote letters, demanding payment of $1,023.69 (some of which may have been distributor items) and threatening to close Westbrook\u2019s account unless satisfactory arrangements were made. December the first (same year) he was told that while monthly payments equaled monthly charges, his delinquent balance was $700 or more. Mention was made of an understanding \u201csome time ago\u201d that the indebtedness should be reduced substantially each month.\nDecember 4, 1937' \u2014 less than two months before Bagley undertook to buy the lots \u2014 Westbrook wrote the Company asking it to \u201cglide along\u201d with him for the next four or five months. He closed with a request that the Company \u201cbe as easy as possible for a few months, and I will keep the account current. \u2019 \u2019\nWe cannot escape the conclusion that when West-brook made his deed to Bagley he owed an amount equal to the sum for which judgment was taken, and the balance never fell below this figure. It is also clear, from Westbrook\u2019s statements, and from inferences drawn from the testimony of others that the transfer rendered West-brook insolvent.\nWestbrook\u2019s testimony regarding the method of payment contradicts his wife, who swore she paid $850 in cash. Nor is there explanation of Bagley\u2019s act in deeding the property back, as he terms it, and not collecting $150 alleged to have been dne him. Of course Bagley could have elected to continue carrying the debt; but it seems strange that, having paid $850 in-cash and checks, and having canceled an old account, he should apparently forget all about it and turn the property back to Westbrook for the exact amount alleged to have been paid. But our decision is not controlled by this inconsistency, if such it is. There are many circumstances pointing to the practical conclusion that there was no intent Bagley should have the property. Instead, he appears to have lent his name and assistance to West-brook\u2019s scheme to denude himself of assets.\nOur view is that the Chancellor erred in that part of the decree in which it was found that the Bagleys and Mrs. Westbrook were innocent purchasers. Reversed, with directions to cancel the deeds. The cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.\nWestbrook executed bond conditioned upon the faithful discharge of duties assumed under the written contract. Sureties were Grady H. Ward and J. W. Bagley. \u2022\nThe deed was executed jointly by Walter Westbrook and his wife, the latter having relinquished dower, homestead, etc. It was filed for record February 9, 1938.\nFiled for record February 12, 1938.\nIt may be observed that in the first reference to the amount claimed to have been paid other than with cash, Bagley mentioned \u201cchecks\u201d \u2014 plural. The second reference is to \u201cit,\u201d as though a single check were given and held by Westbrook, then returned.\nThe Court found that the bond did not cover sales made by Westbrook through his filling station, but was restricted to distributor transactions; hence sureties were released. This is conceded by appellant.\nThe property was mortgaged to a loan association. Its security is not affected.\nThe account sued on was $505.32. With interest it was $442.96.\nA condition of the bond was that Westbrook should not credit parties other than those approved by the Company, \u201cnor shall he receive credit for sales made to approved customers beyond the amount approved by the credit department.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wm. R. Arenclt and Jas. S. McConnell, for appellant.",
      "George Edwin Steel and Boyd Tackett, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Arkansas Fuel Oil Company v. Westbrook.\n4-7367\n180 S. W. 2d 826\nOpinion delivered June 5, 1944.\nWm. R. Arenclt and Jas. S. McConnell, for appellant.\nGeorge Edwin Steel and Boyd Tackett, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 430,
  "last_page_order": 434
}