{
  "id": 1660027,
  "name": "Williams v. Swann",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Swann",
  "decision_date": "1952-07-07",
  "docket_number": "4-9861",
  "first_page": "906",
  "last_page": "907",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "220 Ark. 906"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "251 S.W.2d 111"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "81 S. W. 2d 841",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 Ark. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1421839
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/190/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 S. W. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ark. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1320338
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/54/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 S. W. 635",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 Ark. 102",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1334003
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/68/0102-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 S. W. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 Ark. 949",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725271
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/173/0949-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2137,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6695123070299114e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6957092865259712
    },
    "sha256": "b4ef6d592736eba09d08b28d93d72b09cfe8d76b20afcf0bde81636ee1546233",
    "simhash": "1:eded5ce74d833384",
    "word_count": 362
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:18:21.188385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Williams v. Swann."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holt, J.\nThereafter, on November 9, 1951, appellee, an Arkansas resident and married, filed his verified Schedule of Exemptions under authority of \u00a7 2, Art. 9 of the Constitution of Arkansas and \u00a7 30-209, Ark. Stats., 1947. In this Schedule, appellee stated \u201cthat he is the owner of the following described property in addition to the wearing apparel of himself and family, to-wit: Pine Bluff Sand & Gravel Co. $73.85.\u201d It is conceded that appellee failed to list and claim in his Schedule certain cash deposits with two publie utilities, and held by them in the total amount of $15, but on request the court permitted appellee to amend his Schedule of Exemptions to include these two items. The court was correct in so doing.\nAppellant contends that the above constitutional and statutory provisions require a strict compliance therewith to make his Schedule of Exemptions effective. The rule, however, appears to be well settled that a liberal construction should be given the above sections since they were enacted for the benefit of distressed debtors, and in order, as far as possible, to carry into effect the beneficent purpose for which they are intended.\nWe said in Pemberton v. Bank of Eastern Arkansas, 173 Ark. 949, 294 S. W. 64: \u201cExemption laws are enacted by the Legislature for the benefit of the debtor, and as this court has frequently said, must be liberally construed.\u201d See, also, White v. Swann, 68 Ark. 102, 56 S. W. 635.\nAppellant further argues that, in the circumstances, the court erred in permitting appellee to amend his Schedule, as indicated. We do not agree. Our rule appears to be well settled that: \u201cA schedule of exempt property . . . which is insufficient because it does not set out all the debtor\u2019s property . . . may be amended in the circuit court on appeal.\u201d May v. Hutson, 54 Ark. 226, 15 S. W. 606 (Headnote), and reaffirmed in LaMode Garment Company v. Moore & Company, 190 Ark. 721, 81 S. W. 2d 841.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul K. Roberts, for appellant.",
      "Jim Merritt, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Williams v. Swann.\n4-9861\n251 S. W. 2d 111\nOpinion delivered July 7, 1952.\nRehearing denied October 6, 1952.\nPaul K. Roberts, for appellant.\nJim Merritt, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0906-01",
  "first_page_order": 930,
  "last_page_order": 931
}