{
  "id": 1597669,
  "name": "H. L. ABERCROMBIE v. Mike RICHARDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Abercrombie v. Richards",
  "decision_date": "1970-06-29",
  "docket_number": "5-5307",
  "first_page": "1322",
  "last_page": "1324",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "248 Ark. 1322"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "455 S.W.2d 887"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "197 Ark. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8719642
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/197/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 Ark. 708",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1691704
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/233/0708-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.779,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.941327143178798e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3098053206963031
    },
    "sha256": "5deee1b628457abb3c710e0ec0afeccd5e7386160dccf07b85cc4b947ad4e654",
    "simhash": "1:c1fe4ffe57428953",
    "word_count": 519
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:57.001151+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "H. L. ABERCROMBIE v. Mike RICHARDS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from an adverse ruling on appellant\u2019s petition to vacate three default judgments.\nOn January 29, 1969, appellee filed three separate suits for monies owed to him by appellant for various reasons. Appellant answered with a general denial to each claim and asserted one counterclaim. The cases were consolidated and set for trial on April 9, 1969. On that date appellant\u2019s attorney moved for a continuance primarily due to the inability of the appellant to be present because of illness. An unverified written statement from appellant\u2019s housekeeper was offered to the court asserting that appellant was sick and unable to appear. Appellant\u2019s son appeared before the court and orally made a statement to the same effect. After making inquiry as to the nature ot the defenses to the actions, the court announced that it would enter default judgments against the appellant on the three cases, but that if competent medical evidence were produced establishing that appellant was unable to appear and defend because of illness, the judgments would be vacated.\nOn April 24, 1969, appellant\u2019s attorney filed a written motion to vacate the judgments, stating in part: \u201cThat to date no physician has been found to attend said defendant, examine and prescribe for his benefit. That the said defendant is still ill.\u201d The court dismissed this motion on April 29, 1969, finding that: \u201c1. No excusable negligence has been alleged in said motion. 2. No verified affidavit from competent medical authorities are alleged or set out therein.\u201d The March Term of the Circuit Court adjourned; and, upon the opening of the September Term, appellant entered a petition to vacate the judgments. The petition alleged that new evidence had been acquired concerning appellant\u2019s illness and inability to appear on the date set for trial; that this new evidence would prove a casualty and misfortune which prevented him from appearing; that the court has never heard this new evidence; that the court\u2019s dismissal of appellant\u2019s motion to vacate the judgments perpetrated a fraud upon appellant in that he was not informed of the date of the hearing which resulted in said order; and that appellant has a meritorious defense to this cause. From the court\u2019s dismissal of this petition, based upon the pleadings, comes this appeal.\nWe have often said that, irrespective of other allegations, one cannot successfully set aside a default judgment after term time unless a meritorious defense to the action be alleged and shown. Alexander v. Jones, 233 Ark. 708, 346 S. W. 2d 692 (1961); Sweet v. Nix, 197 Ark. 284, 122 S. W. 2d 538 (1938); Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 29-509 (Repl. 1962). In the case at bar, appellant alleged a \u201cmeritorious defense.\u201d However, this was a naked allegation and a conclusion of law which did not elaborate or show in what respect a valid defense existed on the actual merits of the case. Consequently, it was not error to dismiss the petition.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ewell McCright, for appellant.",
      "Hardin \u00e9r Rickard, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "H. L. ABERCROMBIE v. Mike RICHARDS\n5-5307\n455 S. W. 2d 887\nOpinion delivered June 29, 1970\nEwell McCright, for appellant.\nHardin \u00e9r Rickard, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1322-01",
  "first_page_order": 1390,
  "last_page_order": 1392
}