{
  "id": 1724185,
  "name": "Doris May, etc. v. Spivey Chevrolet Co., Inc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "May v. Spivey Chevrolet Co.",
  "decision_date": "1967-02-20",
  "docket_number": "5-4128",
  "first_page": "1098",
  "last_page": "1099",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "241 Ark. 1098"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "411 S.W.2d 528"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "26 S. W. 2d 92",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 Ark. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721837
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/181/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 S. W. 2d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ark. 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1396898
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/178/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S. W. 1062",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 Ark. 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1505608
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/72/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 S. W. 1052",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 Ark. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1320430
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/54/0627-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 1895,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06487019127369974
    },
    "sha256": "7cf67716152386d4a7f59a4ccfe474e148b15d8721fbf07e5a407e4809938cfd",
    "simhash": "1:0b4acecf73445194",
    "word_count": 318
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:36:03.113111+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Doris May, etc. v. Spivey Chevrolet Co., Inc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nThis collateral attack on an order removing the disabilities of a minor was initiated in the trial court by appellant Doris May as next friend of her son, Wayne May, aga'nst the appellee, Spivey Chevrolet Company. Appellant elected to stand on her complaint and prosecutes this appeal from an order sustaining appellee\u2019s demurrer. No brief has been filed by appellee.\nEarly in 1966, appellant had obtained an order from Saline Chancery Court removing her son\u2019s disabilities. Later, appellant filed this action against appellee seeking to have the order removing disabilities modified, for cancellation of a note and contract and for other relief. Appellee demurred to the complaint and amendment to the complaint, which were properly sustained.\nSince enactment in 1869 of the procedure for removal of disabilities of minors, this court has consistently held that a decree valid on its face removing disabilities of a minor may not be attacked collaterally. Hindman v. O\u2019Connor, 54 Ark. 627, 16 S. W. 1052; Young v. Hiner, 72 Ark. 299, 79 S. W. 1062; Gilmore v. Union Sawmill Co., 178 Ark. 297, 10 S. W. 2d 517. Discussing these cases in Wilson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 181 Ark. 391, 26 S. W. 2d 92, Justice Hart observed, \u201cNo doubt numerous rights have grown up under these decisions, and the holding of the court has become a rule of property.\u201d Our present statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-2001 (Repl. 1962), with the added provision that judges may act in vacation, is a re-enactment of the 1869 law. Obviously, since the minor is not a party to this action, and the decree removing the disabilities of the minor may not be collaterally attacked, the demurrer was properly sustained for defect of parties.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. B. Milham for appellant.",
      "No brief for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Doris May, etc. v. Spivey Chevrolet Co., Inc.\n5-4128\n411 S. W. 2d 528\nOpinion delivered February 20,1967\nJ. B. Milham for appellant.\nNo brief for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1098-01",
  "first_page_order": 1120,
  "last_page_order": 1121
}