{
  "id": 1470155,
  "name": "Deal v. Deal",
  "name_abbreviation": "Deal v. Deal",
  "decision_date": "1948-02-23",
  "docket_number": "4-8442",
  "first_page": "958",
  "last_page": "959",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 Ark. 958"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "208 S.W.2d 782"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "206 S. W. 2d 169",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1470185
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/212/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 Ark. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1473320
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/211/0582-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 262,
    "char_count": 2607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3220498569607726
    },
    "sha256": "3784cae18ff473715474d68c8f6b497bbf544db401ec00b53c7629ba95f4590f",
    "simhash": "1:54315fa778797e0d",
    "word_count": 474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:01:33.594173+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Deal v. Deal."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appeal is from a decree granting Samuel Brown Deal a divorce under subdivision seven, \u00a7 2, Act 20 of 1939 \u2014 separation for three years without cohabitation. The only question is one of fact: was the plaintiff a bona fide resident of Arkansas. Pope\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 4386, Act 71 of 1931.\nAppellee had lived at Waukegan, Illinois, where he worked in a bank. He came to Little Rock March 20, 1947, but went to Eureka Springs April 6th. The complaint was filed May 22nd \u2014 two days beyond the minimum of sixty days required by law. The decree is dated August 5th. Warning order was published and an attorney ad litem notified the wife, Effie Florence.\nAppellee testified that he went to Eureka Springs for rest, but almost immediately consulted a lawyer. Letters he had written his daughter, Shirley, were identified. The first (May 10 \u2014 twelve days before complaint was filed) assured Shirley appellee would return to Waukegan about July 1st, and \u201cif the bank still has a job for me 1 will take it.\u201d\nFour days later, in another letter, appellee said, \u201cAs I [previously] told you, I will return to Waukegan just as soon as I am through here.\u201d In a communication of May 24th there was the statement: \u201cAccording to my present thought I want to return to the bank,' if a job is open. . . . I do not know what steps your mother will take, but I will continue my end down here and hope for a successful conclusion.\u201d Subsequently he wrote: \u201cThe mission on which I came here will soon be ended, and for good or ill it is my decision, so let the future bring what it may.\u201d To appellant he wrote: \u201cYou must know b> this time that the reason I am down here is to secure a divorce.\u201d To this appellee added: \u201cOne will be granted as soon as I become a permanent resident of the State. \u2019 \u2019\nApril 28, 1947, bona fide as applied to one claiming to be a resident was construed. Cas sen v. Cassen, 211 Ark. 582, 201 S. W. 2d 585.\nJune 18th appellee wrote his daughter: \u201c . . . Unfortunately I will be held up longer than I wished, due to certain angles my case is taking. I do want to. get back.\u201d He later wrote: \u201cI will be here for another month, at least.\u201d\nAppellee\u2019s purpose in coming to Arkansas, and his intent to leave as soon as a divorce could be procured, are quite clear. The appeal is controlled by the Cassen case. See, also, Swanson v. Swanson, ante, p. 439, 206 S. W. 2d 169.\nFor want of jurisdictional residential requirement the decree is reversed. Cause dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. J. Russell, for appellant.",
      "Claude A. Fuller, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Deal v. Deal.\n4-8442\n208 S. W. 2d 782\nOpinion delivered February 23, 1948.\nA. J. Russell, for appellant.\nClaude A. Fuller, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0958-01",
  "first_page_order": 974,
  "last_page_order": 975
}