{
  "id": 8717790,
  "name": "Borden v. Industrial Finance Company, Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Borden v. Industrial Finance Co.",
  "decision_date": "1948-11-01",
  "docket_number": "4-8628",
  "first_page": "13",
  "last_page": "13",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 Ark. 13"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "214 S.W.2d 363"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "147 A. L. R. 1132",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 Ark. 1004",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1488273
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/205/1004-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 104,
    "char_count": 828,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20848126666844283
    },
    "sha256": "0c5c711be0fb1c6d4c68ba0e4e1aa6940f2faf16182e63c31a24fc7d883290e3",
    "simhash": "1:80a9c8870c0bf440",
    "word_count": 147
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:29:26.096089+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Borden v. Industrial Finance Company, Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ed F. McFaddin, Justice.\nThe validity of appellants \u2019 tax title is the issue. With becoming candor counsel for appellants say: \u201cThere is but one vital issue presented by this appeal. At the outset we agree that if Lumsden v. Erstine, 205 Ark. 1004, 172 S. W. 2d 409, 147 A. L. R. 1132, is yet the law in this State, then this case must be affirmed. \u2019 \u2019\nIt is true that Lumsden v. Erstine was decided by a divided Court, but the case has been subsequently cited with approval in opinions to which there were no recorded dissents. Lumsden v. Erstine has become a rule of property, and we continue to adhere to the holding of that case.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ed F. McFaddin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Johnson & Johnson, for appellant.",
      "Byron Goodson and E. K. Edwards, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Borden v. Industrial Finance Company, Inc.\n4-8628\n214 S. W. 2d 363\nOpinion delivered November 1, 1948.\nJohnson & Johnson, for appellant.\nByron Goodson and E. K. Edwards, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0013-01",
  "first_page_order": 51,
  "last_page_order": 51
}