{ "id": 1481815, "name": "Keck v. Pickens", "name_abbreviation": "Keck v. Pickens", "decision_date": "1944-10-16", "docket_number": "4-7421", "first_page": "757", "last_page": "761", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "207 Ark. 757" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "182 S.W.2d 873" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "3 Or. 197", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Or.", "case_ids": [ 2292656 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/or/3/0197-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 La. 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La.", "case_ids": [ 8752961 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "413" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/la/2/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 Mich. 101", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1441399 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/113/0101-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. W. 505", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "506" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Neb. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 4430363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/34/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N. W. 376", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "377" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "34 Tenn. (2 Sneed) 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Tenn.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "153" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "54 Iowa 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2318306 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/54/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 N. W. 6", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "7 Md. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Md.", "case_ids": [ 1013362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/md/7/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Conn. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "1 Ala. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "8 Kas. 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 595627 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/8/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Neb. 754", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Neb.", "case_ids": [ 1975431 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/neb/43/0754-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 N. W. 217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "218" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "35 S. W. 2d 347", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ark. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1441749 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/183/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S. W. 216", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 Ark. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1541940 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/96/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 S. W. 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721949 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/63/0244-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 625, "char_count": 8180, "ocr_confidence": 0.519, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.437072271988634e-08, "percentile": 0.4439548406103985 }, "sha256": "8733fcb360a029c82f0b7188a655e034f6c10ce155c28468356629355c13bcfa", "simhash": "1:fea86f6711a378f3", "word_count": 1381 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:39.394631+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Keck v. Pickens." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "G\u00edrieein Smith, Chief Justice.\nWhen in 1918 Pickens sold his farm to Keck, he retained a vendor\u2019s lien securing $1,300 represented by Keck\u2019s note due two years after date. An Indian \u2014 Fred Cox, alias James B. Burns \u2014convinced Keck he owned lands near Oklahoma City. Keck, proprietor of a variety store at Bentonville (this State) traded his stock of goods and the so-called Pickens farm for the Oklahoma realty. After Cox (who immediately came to Bentonville) had disposed of a large portion of the Keck merchandise, Keck telegraphed from Oklahoma City that he had been defrauded. The difficulty was that Cox did not own the ranch he had so glibly traded for values in Arkansas. Some of the goods shipped from Keck\u2019s store were stopped in transit before reaching the consignee designated by Cox. These were returned to Bentonville and sold, with the assistance of Pickens, who was then cashier of the Benton County National Bank. Keck owed the Bank approximately $1,750.\nBefore leaving Bentonville, Cox sold Pickens the farm Pickens had sold Keck, as to which Keck had not executed his deed. In order to consummate his deal with Cox, Keck had requested Pickens to .release his $1,300 lien, explaining, as Pickens testified, that he stood to profit substantially as a consequence of dealings with \u25a0Cox, and that as soon as the Indian\u2019s lands were sold, proceeds would be applied in payment of the Bank\u2019s indebtedness and the balance due Pickens. Whatever the facts may have been regarding Keck\u2019s purpose in procuring release of the lien, Pickens bought the Indian\u2019s equity in the farm he (Pickens) had formerly owned, and procured Keck\u2019s deed without routing the record transaction through Cox.\nKeck contends that Pickens took the farm back in full satisfaction of all indebtedness. Pickens first insisted that the note represented purchase money for forty acres Keck\u2019s parents bought \u2014 property recently acquired by Keck through descent and distribution.\nPickens kept the note until September 27, 1943, then sued. There was judgment, with interest, for $5,508.24.\nA defense is that the debt was barred by limitation. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 8933. Contention is that the note matured July 14, 1920, and .that it had run five years July 14,1925. Appellee counters with the assertion that Keck was an absconding.debtor. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 8952.\nThe record is replete with testimony that Keck\u2019s leave-taking was not secretive. Sid Jackson, who was sheriff of \u00a1Benton County during 1918, said he knew Keck was leaving and knew where he was going. This information, he testified, was general. Keck testified that Pickens wrote him that the merchandise replevied from Cox had been sold to a Mrs. Plummer; that he (Keck) insisted the sale should bring sufficient to discharge the Bank debt, and that his address then was 810 North Robinson Street, Oklahoma City, where Mrs. Keck operated a dress and apron shop. Appellant did picture framing for a well-known establishment. Keck was listed in the telephone directory and was visited by people from Bentonville.\nA year later (August, 1919) the Kecks moved to No. 13 West Fourth Street, where they remained until February, 1920. They retained a telephone and received mail regularly. Mrs. Keck rented rooms and appellant worked for a milling company. From West Fourth Street the couple moved to 311 North Harvey \u2014 \u201cinto a large building and rented rooms.\u201d They remained there until November or December, then went to 419 West Eighth Street, where they lived until July, 1927.\nThe next move (1927) took them to Chicago. This trip was by automobile, by way of Benton County, where visits were made. Prior to that time (in 1921) appellant visited his mother near Rogers, and while in the County saw many friends. In Chicago (at 1221 North Dearborn Street) Mrs. Keck kept a rooming house. Her husband conducted a grocery store at 1746 West Lawrence Street. His name appears in the telephone directory, a page from which was introduced in evidence.\nThe foregoing, and other testimony, clearly shows that appellant was not an absconder, within the meaning of our statute postponing operation of the provision for limitation.\nThe rule stated in Keith v. Hiner, 63 Ark. 244, 38 S. W. 13, is that if the debtor leaves openly, or with knowledge of his creditors, such creditors are not deprived'of an opportunity to bring suit. There is the statement in Rock Island Plow Company v. Masterson, 96 Ark. 446, 132 S. W. 216, that one who leaves the state openly, publicly, and with knowledge of his creditors, is not an absconding debtor. In Smith v. Farmers & Merchants Bank, 183 Ark. 235, 35 S. W. 2d 347, it was held that the guarantor of a note, who left the state \u2018 \u2018 openly, and with the knowledge of officers of a bank, \u2019 \u2019 was not an absconding debtor within the meaning of our statute.\nThe general rule is that a debtor who fraudulently conceals himself prevents the creditor from successfully prosecuting a suit; hence the exception in our limitation law which excludes the time such concealment exists. See Words and Phrases, Permanent Edition, v. 1, p. 123, et seq. A definition there copied, which is supported by the weight of authority, is:\n\u201cTo \u2018abscond\u2019 means to go in a clandestine manner out of tbe jurisdiction of tbe courts, or to be concealed in order to avoid their process; to hide, conceal, or absent one\u2019s self clandestinely, with intent to avoid legal process. Smith v. Johnson, 62 N. W. 217, 218, 43 Neb. 754, citing Hoggett v. Emerson, 8 Kas. 262; Ware v. Todd, 1 Ala. 200; Fitch v. Waite, 5 Conn. 121; Field v. Adreon, 7 Md. 209; Malvin v. Christoph, 7 N. W. 6, 54 Iowa 562, quoting Bouv. Law Dict.; Bennett v. Avant, 34 Tenn. (2 Sneed) 152, 153; Gandy v. Jolly, 52 N. W. 376, 377, 34 Neb. 536; McMorran v. Moore, 71 N. W. 505, 506, 113 Mich. 101; Thompson v. Newton, 2 La. 411, 413; Norman v. Zieber, 3 Or. 197, 205.\u201d\nMany disinterested witnesses testified they bad seen Keck in Benton County since be moved; that bis visits were frequent, and there was no apparent purpose to conceal bis presence.\nTypical of tbe evidence opposing tbe charge of concealment is tbe testimony of Mrs. D. W. Peel, 70 years of age \u2014 a resident of Bentonville. She remembered when the Indian defrauded Keck. Tbe swindler\u2019s operations were publicized, as was Keck\u2019s attempted purchase of th,e Oklahoma farm and bis purpose to move to it. Mrs. Peel\u2019s exact language is: \u201cI never beard it was a secret. They talked about it for days \u2014 great excitement, you know.\u201d When asked just what she meant, tbe witness replied: \u201cMrs. Keck talking about it \u2014 what they were going to do; tbat they were selling out and moving.\u201d Mrs. Peel knew appellant\u2019s mother, and they were friends.\nIn connection with appellant\u2019s custom of returning to Benton County, Mrs. Peel said: \u201cTbe family visited Keck\u2019s mother frequently, and always came to see me. This must have continued over a period of fifteen to seventeen years \u2014 a long time. \u2019 \u2019\nOrdinarily, a debtor wbo seeks to conceal bimself does not go openly; nor does be, after leaving, communicate witb friends. Concealment is inconsistent with subscribing to telephones and directing correct listings for business and personal purposes. Generally, an individual seeking anonymity does not make periodical visits to bis former borne where reside those interested in discovering bis whereabouts.\nWe think the court erred in finding that appellant bad absconded, and in denying the plea of limitation. It is unnecessary, in view of this determination, to appraise the evidence relating to validity of the demand.\nThe decree is reversed, witb directions to dismiss the action.\nThe $1,300 item was part of the consideration paid by Keck.\nThis witness testified that Rex Peel, her son, was \u201cat the time\u201d cashier of the First National Bank of Bentonville. Rex moved to Oklahoma City. Mrs. Peel (the mother) frequently visited her son in Oklahoma, and at the same time visited the Keck family \u2014 \u201cwent once a year and stayed a month. The last time I was there I stayed all winter.\u201d", "type": "majority", "author": "G\u00edrieein Smith, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Vol T. Lindsey, for appellant.", "Claude Duty and Lee Seamster, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Keck v. Pickens.\n4-7421\n182 S. W. 2d 873\nOpinion delivered October 16, 1944.\nVol T. Lindsey, for appellant.\nClaude Duty and Lee Seamster, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0757-01", "first_page_order": 795, "last_page_order": 799 }