{
  "id": 1481868,
  "name": "Dantzler v. Bond",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dantzler v. Bond",
  "decision_date": "1944-11-27",
  "docket_number": "4-7472",
  "first_page": "1000",
  "last_page": "1001",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ark. 1000"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1551,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "3d127518a8d8e39cab9d3d860434829a5179b8e9f2640e0a90f87083635fd097",
    "simhash": "1:b09b8a3b0281174f",
    "word_count": 256
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:46:39.394631+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dantzler v. Bond."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nDantzler sought to enjoin the County from working a road through his land, contending it was private property. The highway had not been designated by court order. Only question for our determination is whether the 'Chancellor\u2019s finding that use had been hostile and adverse for seven years was supported by a preponderance of the testimony.\nEvidence is but sketchily abstracted. A map is discussed, and we are referred to the transcript for its meaning. What the drawing would disclose in aid of appellant\u2019s contention is presented adjectively, rather than visually.\nAppellant testified that in February, 1942, he destroyed a bridge. Over his protest the County reconstructed it in August of the same year. No one, said appellant, was authorized to travel this road. He began complaining of trespassers five or six years before suit was filed, and thought there had not been general travel over the land prior to that time. Other witnesses were certain common use went back ten or twelve years; \u201ctwenty,\u201d one said.\nIf we accept testimony given by appellant and by others in his behalf, prescriptive rights had not been acquired; hut if appellee\u2019s witnesses are to be believed, the converse is true. Even though it is quite clear that only a few people had need of the highway, we are not convinced that the Chancellor erred in declining to restrain the defendant below.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "K. T. Sutton, for appellant.",
      "John A. Fogleman and James C. Hale, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dantzler v. Bond.\n4-7472\nOpinion delivered November 27, 1944.\nK. T. Sutton, for appellant.\nJohn A. Fogleman and James C. Hale, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1000-01",
  "first_page_order": 1038,
  "last_page_order": 1039
}