{
  "id": 1866088,
  "name": "Veatch vs. Greenwood",
  "name_abbreviation": "Veatch v. Greenwood",
  "decision_date": "1861-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "637",
  "last_page": "638",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ark. 637"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 131,
    "char_count": 1659,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28567148123307573
    },
    "sha256": "eecfd8e4698900d6e95d24948b74c2a8b8f79dd6bbeec270fafce8f6e19e6104",
    "simhash": "1:18c6b0246aab0ed6",
    "word_count": 284
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:15:02.560591+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Veatch vs. Greenwood."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Compton\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nAssumpsit by Greenwood against Yeatch and Wardlow. Veatch demurred to the declaration for misjoinder of counts, upon the ground that some of the counts were against Yeatch and Wardlow, and others against Yeatch alone. Pending' the demurrer, the plaintiff discontinued as to Wardlow, and the court sustained the demurrer as to the third and fourth, and overruled it as to the first and second counts. Yeatch rested, final judgment was rendered against him, and he appealed.'.\nThe demurrer was to the whole declaration; and in refusing to sustain it to that extent, the court erred. In case of misjoinder of counts, the entire declaration is bad, and the rule is, that the plaintiff cannot, if the declaration be demurred to, aid the mistake by entering a nolle prosequi, so as to prevent the\u2019 operation of the demurrer for misjoinder; though the court may, and, in general, should grant him leave to amend by striking out some of the counts on payment of costs. Chit, on Plead., marg. p. 206; Drummond vs. Dorant, 4 T. Rep. 360; Jennings vs. Newman, Ib. 347. Here, there was no motion for leave to strike out.\nLet the judgment be reversed, and the cause remanded, to be proceeded in according to law,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Compton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hutchinson, for appellant.",
      "Garland & Randolph, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Veatch vs. Greenwood.\nIn ease of misjoinder of counts, the entire declaration is bad, and it is error to sustain a demurrer to some of the counts and overrule it as to others \u2014 in such cat)'.' the court should, in general, on motion, grant leave to amend by striking out.\nAppeal from Chicot Circuit Court.\nHon. John C. Murray, Circuit Judge!\nHutchinson, for appellant.\nGarland & Randolph, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0637-01",
  "first_page_order": 645,
  "last_page_order": 646
}