{
  "id": 1627368,
  "name": "Joe WARREN et ux v. Debbie WARREN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Warren v. Warren",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-02",
  "docket_number": "5-6013",
  "first_page": "134",
  "last_page": "135",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 134"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "484 S.W.2d 880"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1659984
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0312-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 1913,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.851,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4033266686372354e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3388218772600256
    },
    "sha256": "4db78ad63b7a501c840c1f26e41e78f1a5fe24b20a127f42546eb550f15abf05",
    "simhash": "1:fcfe05df365cc253",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joe WARREN et ux v. Debbie WARREN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellants bought a $3,500 automobile for their young son Stanley and put the title in his name, retaining possession of the certificate of title. A few months later Stanley, then 23, married the appellee, then 16, with her mother\u2019s consent. During the brief marriage, which ended within a few days without consummation, Stanley took the certificate of title from his mother\u2019s papers and gave the car to his bride, with the title being reissued in her name. The appellants do not question their son\u2019s intention to give the automobile to his wife.\nAfter the appellee filed an action for divorce the appellants brought this suit to recover the car. Stanley\u2019s mother testified that the title to the vehicle was put in the son\u2019s name \u201cfor insurance purposes,\u201d to protect the elder Warren from being responsible. Mrs. Warren stated that her son was allowed to treat the car as his own, but he was not to have any authority to dispose of it. Mr. Warren did not testify.\nThe chancellor refused to disturb the appellee\u2019s ownership, holding that as between the two couples the car belonged to Stanley at the time he gave it to his wife. We do not find the chancellor\u2019s decision to be against the weight of the evidence. The appellants came into a court of equity in the manifestly inconsistent position of having sought on the one hand to retain the real ownership of the automobile while endeavoring on the other to be ready to defraud innocent members of the public by making it appear that their financially irresponsible son was in fact the owner. There is no sound reason for a court of conscience to rescue the appellants from a predicament of their own making. See McClure v. McClure, 220 Ark. 312, 247 S.W. 2d 466 (1952).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dede W. Finley, for appellants.",
      "John Harris, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joe WARREN et ux v. Debbie WARREN\n5-6013\n484 S.W. 2d 880\nOpinion delivered October 2, 1972\nDede W. Finley, for appellants.\nJohn Harris, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0134-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 159
}