{
  "id": 8725325,
  "name": "Case v. Hunt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Case v. Hunt",
  "decision_date": "1950-11-27",
  "docket_number": "4-9296",
  "first_page": "929",
  "last_page": "932",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 Ark. 929"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "234 S.W.2d 197"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "230 S. W. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 Ark. 408",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720728
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/148/0408-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 Ark. 693",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1446932
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/203/0693-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 Ark. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1614249
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/216/0398-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 4297,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2269389344706595e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7783839907268725
    },
    "sha256": "33769bfacf361edaebd4f9ae6a86da6da87bb459502b4a7880d46d87fbb5822e",
    "simhash": "1:3860a08f0e4e79a2",
    "word_count": 735
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:24.265381+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Case v. Hunt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Leflar, J.\nAppellant Case brought this action for treble damages under Ark. Stats., \u00a7 50-105, on account of the cutting by defendants of 856 pine trees from Case\u2019s land. Defendants admitted that they cut the trees, but denied that the circumstances of the cutting justified an award against them of thrice the value of the timber cut. The jury returned a verdict against defendants for single damages only, and plaintiff Case appeals.\nThe testimony differed as to the actual amount of lumber cut from the 856 trees, but the maximum testified to was 20,000 board feet. The value of the lumber as cut also was the subject of divergent testimony, but the highest rate testified to was $10 per 1,000 board feet. The jury\u2019s verdict of $200 for the plaintiff was obviously an award of single damages based on these maximum figures.\nThe evidence was that defendants had bought from a third party the timber on a tract adjoining Case\u2019s land, and that the seller had pointed out the boundary incorrectly, so that defendants thought the 856 trees were included in the timber they had bought from the third person. Defendants did not, before cutting the trees, have the boundary surveyed in the manner set out in Ark. Stats., \u00a7 54-201, though their testimony indicated an honest belief that the 856 trees were on their own side of the boundary. They now admit that this belief was erroneous.\nThe first ground relied upon by appellant Case is the Circuit Judge\u2019s refusal to give appellant\u2019s proffered Instruction No. 1, which would have told the jury that defendants\u2019 failure to procure the survey by the County Surveyor, as prescribed by \u00a7 54-201, before cutting the 856 pine trees \u201cwould be prima facie willful and unlawful and the plaintiff would be entitled to recover three times the value of the said 856 pine trees so cut and removed, and your verdict should be for the plaintiff for such amount. \u2019 \u2019\nThis was in the nature of a binding instruction. Defendants had given evidence that the cutting on plaintiff\u2019s land was not willful, that they had gone on plaintiff\u2019s land unintentionally. Yet the instruction stated that if the statutory survey had not been made, as admittedly it had not, the plaintiff should receive treble damages in any event.\nFailure to procure the statutory survey is some evidence that the timber was cut willfully and intentionally from plaintiff\u2019s land, but it does not in the face of contrary evidence have the practically conclusive effect which plaintiff\u2019s Instruction No. 1 would have ascribed to it. See Parker v. Fenter, 216 Ark. 398, 225 S. W. 2d 940. The proffered instruction was correctly refused.\nAppellant also complains of two instructions which were at defendants\u2019 request given by the Circuit Judge.\nOne of these, No. 6, told the jury that if they found that defendants \u201chad probable cause to believe that the land on which the trespass is alleged to have been committed, or the timber cut and carried away, was (their) own, then the plaintiff shall recover only single damages, or in other words the actual value of the timber so cut and removed.\u201d The instruction is in exact accordance with the provisions of Ark. Stats., \u00a7 50-107, which we have deemed to be a part of the same statutes as \u00a7 50-105. Sturgess v. Nunn, 203 Ark. 693, 158 S. W. 2d 673. The later section explicitly limits the right of treble recovery which plaintiff seeks under \u00a7 50-105, and the instruction based upon it was properly given.\nThe other instruction complained of, No. 8, told the jury that if they believed \u201cthat the defendants cut this timber under the honest belief that it was on the tract of timber which they had bought, . . . that they were not taking it purposely, intentionally and knowingly from Mr. Case\u2019s land,\u201d they should award single damages only. This instruction likewise is in accordance with the law of this state. Upton v. Wimbrow, 148 Ark. 408, 230 S. W. 277; Sturgess v. Nunn, supra; Parker v. Fenter, supra. Our statutes do not impose double or treble damages upon one who cuts timber from the land of another unless lie does so willfully and intentionally. Otherwise, single damages suffice.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Leflar, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ben B. Williamson, for appellant.",
      "J. L. Bittle, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Case v. Hunt.\n4-9296\n234 S. W. 2d 197\nOpinion delivered November 27, 1950.\nBen B. Williamson, for appellant.\nJ. L. Bittle, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0929-01",
  "first_page_order": 953,
  "last_page_order": 956
}