{
  "id": 1606930,
  "name": "Clyde Sarratt d/b/a Waldron Stave Company v. Crouch Equipment Company, Inc., et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Sarratt v. Crouch Equipment Co.",
  "decision_date": "1968-12-09",
  "docket_number": "5-4727",
  "first_page": "775",
  "last_page": "778",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "245 Ark. 775"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "434 S.W.2d 286"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "243 Ark. 987",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725244
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/243/0987-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 Ark. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1723975
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/241/0452-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 3659,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0873401050065135e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5641821202703323
    },
    "sha256": "42e97c892c56938f78c641a44c2769b0d5469a168beb1ce591c3825513213fd2",
    "simhash": "1:f9756a264b3c3f08",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:50.317094+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Clyde Sarratt d/b/a Waldron Stave Company v. Crouch Equipment Company, Inc., et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Paul Ward, Justice.\nThe sole issue on this appeal relates to the question of venue. The facts presently summarized are not in dispute.\nOn January 18,1968, Clyde Carratt, d/b/a Waldron Stave Company (appellant) filed a Complaint in the circuit court of Scott County against Crouch Equipment Company, Inc. (appellee \u2014 referred to as Crouch) and Cummins Diesel Sales Corporation (appellee \u2014 referred to as Cummins). The complaint contained, in substance, the following material allegations: (a) Appellant, located in Scott County, operates a stave business and owns a truck used in long distance hauling; (b) appellant delivered said truck to appellees for purpose \u2018\u00a3 of installing a rebuilt motor\u201d and making other repairs for which work they were to receive $4,500 and which he had paid; (c) appellees carelessly and negligently installed a defective motor (supplied by Cummins), pistons and other parts, which caused the motor to break down, resulting in damages to the truck in the amount of $7,000, and also caused a loss of time to the extent of $2,990. The prayer was for judgment against appellees in the amount of $9,990.\nSummons was issued by the clerk of Scott County to the sheriff of Pulaski County for service on Cummins, and, to the sheriff of Sebastian County for service on Crouch.\nIn proper time both appellees filed separate Motions to Quash said issuances of service on the ground that the circuit court of Scott County \u201clacked venue over the parties and subject matter of this cause of action\u201d.\nAfter the submissions of memorandum briefs the trial court sustained both Motions and dismissed the cause of action. This appeal follows.\nThe thrust of appellant\u2019s argument for a reversal is that this is an action based on tort and not on breach of contract, and that, therefore, venue is controlled by Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-611, which reads:\n\u201cAny action for damages to personal property by wrongful or negligent act may be brought either in the county where the accident occurred which caused the damage or in the county of the residence of the person who was the owner of the property at the time the cause of action arose.\u201d (Emphasis ours.)\nThis construction of the statute however has been construed by this Court contrary to appellant\u2019s contention.\nIn the case of Intl. Harvester Co. et al v. Lyle Brown, Circuit Judge, 241 Ark. 452, 408 S.W. 2d 504, we construed the cited statute, based on facts similar to those here, and said:\n\u201cWe construe this section to apply only where there has been \u2018personal injury\u2019 or where there has be.en actual force or violence \u2014 such as a collision between two automobiles.\u201d\nHere, appellant does not even contend any \u201cpersonal injury\u201d or any \u201cforce or violence\u201d is involved. He does however distinguish the cited case from this case on the ground that it was based on breach of warranty and not on contract \u2014 as here. We point out, however, that this distinction was obliterated by our decision in Evans Laboratories, Inc. and Elmer Pearson v. Russell C. Roberts, Circuit Judge, 243 Ark. 987, 423 S.W. 2d 271. There this same question arose, and we said:\n\u201cRegardless of whether a suit for a breach of warranty is on contract or in tort, venue for an action is not controlled by such classification, but is controlled by venue statute.\u201d\nIt is our conclusion that the decision of the trial court was correct, and it is, therefore, affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Paul Ward, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald Poe for appellant.",
      "Bethell, Stocks, Callaway & King and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings; by Phillip S. Anderson for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Clyde Sarratt d/b/a Waldron Stave Company v. Crouch Equipment Company, Inc., et al\n5-4727\n434 S.W. 2d 286\nOpinion Delivered December 9, 1968\nDonald Poe for appellant.\nBethell, Stocks, Callaway & King and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings; by Phillip S. Anderson for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0775-01",
  "first_page_order": 799,
  "last_page_order": 802
}