{
  "id": 1702718,
  "name": "Stroud v. M. M. Barksdale Lumber Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stroud v. M. M. Barksdale Lumber Co.",
  "decision_date": "1958-05-26",
  "docket_number": "5-1576",
  "first_page": "111",
  "last_page": "113",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "229 Ark. 111"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "313 S.W.2d 376"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "33 Ark. 722",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726017
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/33/0722-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 Ark. 10",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453429
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/200/0010-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 Ark. 1090",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1459797
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/198/1090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S. W. 2d 284",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 Ark. 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1462432
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/196/0568-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S. W. 70",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 Ark. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1513852
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/90/0241-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 Ark. 1142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725839
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/197/1142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S. W. 2d 307",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 Ark. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1393588
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/180/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S. W. 971",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 Ark. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1314448
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/99/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 S. W. 1037",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ark. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718438
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/74/0093-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 4810,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0215919560689585e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5453592082009414
    },
    "sha256": "89e9594e3b05117c8511cfa31e3dd68f79f964cf2374a284ff268d7867480896",
    "simhash": "1:083b0c1ca45ed28c",
    "word_count": 821
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:19:04.434209+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stroud v. M. M. Barksdale Lumber Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice.\nThe question for decision is whether the complaint and amended complaint filed in the trial court stated a cause of action.\nOn June 6, 1957 appellee, M. M. Barksdale Lumber Company, filed a complaint against \u201cStroud Brothers Lumber Company, Inc.\u201d in which it was alleged appellee sold to the said defendant a \u201clot of lumber for the price of\u201d $1,382.43; that the amount was due, and; that demand for payment had been made and refused. The prayer was for payment in said amount. The complaint was verified. Also attached thereto, marked \u201cExhibit A,\u201d was a verified and detailed statement of the account of the aforementioned sum. This statement was made out to \u201cStroud Mills.\u201d On June 25, 1957 \u201cStroud Brothers Lumber Company, Inc. \u2019 \u2019 answered with a general denial.\nOn the 12th day of July, 1957 appellee filed a verified \"Amended Complaint\u201d in which it was stated:\n\"Plaintiff hereby amends his complaint by making S. Y. Stroud and Roy Stroud, dba Stroud Milling Company with place of business at Mena, Polk County, Arkansas, as defendants; by making Raymond Stroud and Roy Stroud, doing business as Stroud Lumber Company, Inc., defendants; and prays judgment against S. V. Stroud and Roy Stroud and Raymond Stroud, against the Stroud Brothers Lumber Company, Inc., against Stroud Milling Company, against Stroud Lumber Company, Inc., in the amount of Thirteen Hundred Eighty-Two Dollars and Forty-Three Cents.\u201d\nOn the same day summons issued for the newly named defendants.\nNo answer or other pleading having been filed by the newly named defendants, appellee filed a verified Motion For Default Judgment on December 14, 1957. On December 27,1957, no pleading still .having been filed by any of said defendants, the trial court entered a default judgment in favor of appellee against \"S. Y. Stroud and Roy Stroud as individuals and dba Stroud Mill Company, and against Raymond Stroud and Roy Stroud as individuals and dba Stroud Lumber Company, Inc.\u201d\nThis appeal is prosecuted by those parties against whom the above judgment was rendered. The only question involved is, as stated by appellants, \"whether the complaint and amended complaint state a cause of action upon which to base a default judgment against the defendants brought into litigation by the amended complaint. \u2019 \u2019\nIt is our conclusion that the complaint and amended complaint, taken together, do state a cause of action against appellants. While the second complaint is denominated an \"Amended\u201d complaint, yet we think it should be treated as an \u201cAmendment\u201d to the first complaint. The first portion of the second paragraph begins as follows: \"Plaintiff hereby amends his complaint by making S. Y. Stroud and Roy Stroud . . . defendants . . .\u201d This portion of the amended pleadings, taken together with the rest of it, indicates clearly, we think, that it was not meant to take the place of the first complaint hut to add to it. We have frequently stated, in effect, that a pleading will not be judged by what it is called but by what it contains. It was said in Randolph v. Nichol, 74 Ark. 93 (at page 101), 84 S. W. 1037: \u201cBut under our code of practice all forms of action are abolished, and relief is granted according to the facts alleged and proved, without regard to the form or denomination of the plea.\u201d To the same effect, see: Clements v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company, 99 Ark. 335, 138 S. W. 971; Teal v. Thompson, 180 Ark. 63, 20 S. W. 2d 307, and; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. H. Rouw Company, 197 Ark. 1142, 127 S. W. 2d 251.\nAlso, under our system, we must construe pleadings liberally and give them every reasonable intendment. Mason v. Gates, 90 Ark. 241, 119 S. W. 70; James v. Lloyd, 196 Ark. 568, 118 S. W. 2d 284; Central Supply Company v. Wren, 198 Ark. 1090, 133 S. W. 2d 632, and; Neal v. Parker, 200 Ark. 10, 139 S. W. 2d 41.\nTherefore, when we take both of appellee\u2019s pleadings, and considering them in accordance with principles above stated, we think all the appellants were aware of the fact that appellee was attempting to hold the\u00fai liable for the lumber it had sold. It is of no avail to appellants that the statement was made out to \u201cStroud Mills\u201d when it now appears that the correct name is \u201cStroud Mill Co. Inc.\u201d This issue was decided against appellants in the Central Supply Company case, supra. See also \u00a7 27-1155 Ark. Stats. and Beavers v. Baucum, 33 Ark. 722.\nAppellants make no contention that proper service was not had on any of them, and since, as we have indicated above, the pleadings stated a cause of action, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Associate Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald Poe\u2022 and Shaver, Tachett d> Jones, for appellant.",
      "Loohadoo, Gooch <& Loohadoo, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Stroud v. M. M. Barksdale Lumber Co.\n5-1576\n313 S. W. 2d 376\nOpinion delivered May 26, 1958.\nDonald Poe\u2022 and Shaver, Tachett d> Jones, for appellant.\nLoohadoo, Gooch <& Loohadoo, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0111-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 137
}