{
  "id": 1866142,
  "name": "Farish vs. Jones",
  "name_abbreviation": "Farish v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1861-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "323",
  "last_page": "324",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ark. 323"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ark., 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2686,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.417,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2087053531992334e-07,
      "percentile": 0.776180580412217
    },
    "sha256": "d0c5e6dcb6b18acfe081bfa9d8909c9015e5e9dd2add41e920e891487fe8acb1",
    "simhash": "1:16d936286cbbe3de",
    "word_count": 483
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:02.560591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Farish vs. Jones."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice English\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nJones brought an action of debt, by petition and summons, against Farish, on a promissory note, in Desha Circuit Court. At the return term the defendant appeared, and filed two pleas, nil debit, and a special plea in bar. At the next term, the court struck out the first plea, sustained a demurrer to the second, and rendered judgment for the plaintiff.\nFor what cause the court struck out the plea of nil debit, does not appear. The counsel for the appellee insists that it must be presumed, for the purpose of sustaining the judgment, that the plea was stricken out for some good and sufficient cause.\nBut such presumption cannot be indulged against the affirmative showing made by the record, that the court erred. The plea was appropriate to the action \u2014 debt on an unsealed instrument\u2014 was in the usual form, signed by counsel, and appears to have been filed in good time.\nThe second plea alleges, in substance, that the note sued on was given for the last payment of the purchase money of four acres of land, which the plaintiff sold to defendant, and gave him a bond for a fee simple title deed; and that the deed was to be made and delivered to the defendant upon the payment of said purchase m\u00f3ney; but that no deed had been tendered before suit, etc.\nThe plea makes profer\u00ed of the bond for title, but does not set it out, or state the substance of it, nor was it brought upon the record by oyer.\nThe plea fails to show that the bond contained mutual and dependent covenants \u2014 or in other words, that the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the contract of sale to make or tender to defendant a deed for the land before suit for the purchase money. See Lewis vs. Davis, 21 Ark., 237, and cases cited.\nThe court properly sustained a demurrer to the plea.\nThe judgment must be reversed and the cause remanded with-instructions to the court to reinstate the appellant\u2019s plea of nil debit, and that the cause progress, etc.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice English"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Weatherford for the appellant.",
      "Garland & Randolph, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Farish vs. Jones.\nThis court cannot presume, for the purpose of sustaining the judgment of the Circuit Court, that a plea was stricken out for some good and sufficient cause, against the affirmative showing, made by the record, that the court erred.\nA plea that the bond sued on was given for the last payment of a tract of land, and that the plaintiff had not made or tendered a deed, according to his bond for title, is not a good defence, if it fails to show that the bond, which was not made a part of the record, contained mutual and dependent covenants.\nAppeal from, Desha Circuit Court.\nHon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge.\nWeatherford for the appellant.\nGarland & Randolph, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0323-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 332
}