{
  "id": 1609138,
  "name": "Bailey v. Tolleson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bailey v. Tolleson",
  "decision_date": "1951-07-09",
  "docket_number": "4-9562",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "219 Ark. 307"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "241 S.W.2d 110"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "214 Ark. 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723706
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/214/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 Ark. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1444155
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/204/0627-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 3210,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31783088512110164
    },
    "sha256": "56ced19b784476b4e97b4e7ae23ff8babe2da119f04b0a3bb06292185af3b9da",
    "simhash": "1:352c89f28fba611a",
    "word_count": 569
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:55.172495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bailey v. Tolleson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Minor W. Millwee, Justice.\nAppellant, E. L. Bailey, was plaintiff in the circuit court in an action against appellee, Marie Tolleson, for the conversion of an automobile. The case was heard on a stipulation of facts and the testimony of appellant and his former attorney.\nIt is set out in the stipulation that appellant was the owner of the car in controversy on November 19, 1946, when he sold it to W. R. Davis under a title retaining note; that on December 19, 1946, Davis sold the car to Phil Schwartz, a used-car dealer, who sold it to another party early in 1947 and repurchased it in April, 1947, when he sold the car to appellee; that appellee sold the car either in April or May, 1948, to a third party; and that the only question involved in the suit is whether appellee knew at the time she owned the car or at the time she sold it that appellant had a title retaining note on the car.\nAt the conclusion of the evidence both parties moved for a directed verdict. The trial court then withdrew the cause from the jury and rendered judgment for appellee.\nIn passing on the correctness of the trial court\u2019s finding and judgment, we apply the rule stated in Green v. Ozark Land Co., 204 Ark. 627, 163 S. W. 2d 325 (Headnote 1) as follows: \u201cWhere both parties ask for instructed verdicts and for no other instructions and the court withdraws the case from the jury, his findings, are as binding as the verdict of the jury, and if there is any substantial evidence to support them the judgment rendered thereon will be affirmed.\u201d\nUnder onr holding in Schwartz v. Fulmer, 214 Ark. 572, 217 S. W. 2d 254, it was incumbent on appellant in the trial court to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that appellee had notice of appellant\u2019s claim of title to the car while she owned it or when she sold it in April or May, 1948.\nAppellant testified that he located the car on Schwartz\u2019s car lot and afterwards had a conversation with one of the salesmen in the office where appellee was employed in regard to appellant\u2019s claim of title to the car. Appellant first testified that this conversation took place either the same day or a few days before the instant suit was brought. It is undisputed that the present action was filed on November 3, 1948. The court asked and appellant answered as follows: \u201cThe Court: I didn\u2019t get it quite clear when it was you had the conversation with the salesman and Miss Tolleson. A. (Appellant) I imagine it was sometime in \u201948, Judge. I don\u2019t remember what time it was.\u2019\u2019 Appellant\u2019s former attorney testified that after appellant located the car. on Schwartz\u2019s lot, he (the attorney) had a conversation with Schwartz in appellee\u2019s presence about bringing suit to recover the car. He was uncertain about the date of this conversation and stated that he filed the instant suit \u2018 \u2018 a few months \u2019 \u2019 later.\nThe trial court was warranted in concluding that appellant did not meet the burden of proving the notice required to establish the charge of conversion against appellee. The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Minor W. Millwee, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "O. D. Longstreth, Jr., and Dave E. Witt, for appellant.",
      "Talley & Owen, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bailey v. Tolleson.\n4-9562\n241 S. W. 2d 110\nOpinion delivered July 9, 1951.\nO. D. Longstreth, Jr., and Dave E. Witt, for appellant.\nTalley & Owen, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 333
}