{
  "id": 8723020,
  "name": "C. A. BAWCOM v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CREDIT CORPORATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bawcom v. Allis-Chalmers Credit Corp.",
  "decision_date": "1974-05-13",
  "docket_number": "74-12",
  "first_page": "569",
  "last_page": "570",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ark. 569"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "508 S.W.2d 741"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "247 Ark. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1600723
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/247/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1630097
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/252/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 Ark. 1060",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726233
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/255/1060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 Ark. 971",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8724904
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/244/0971-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2148,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.854,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.5504885478429614e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9244786085984164
    },
    "sha256": "44b4a2550887f840cc1e3601d916b0b6883bb4626ae62f79be6c9445d12c8cb5",
    "simhash": "1:dbec56cc412c53c2",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "C. A. BAWCOM v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CREDIT CORPORATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "FRANK Holt, Justice.\nBy conditional sales contracts, the appellant purchased certain farm equipment from appellee. Thereafter, appellee commenced a replevin action against appellant to repossess the equipment alleging delinquent payments on the unpaid balance. After giving notice of a proposed public sale to the highest bidder, appellee amended its complaint seeking a money judgment. After the auction, appellee filed a \u201cReport of Sale\u201d and prayed for a deficiency judgment. Appellant rr\\oved to strike the amended complaint and \u201cReport of Sale\u201d on the theory of election of remedies.\nThe lower court, with approval of appellant and appellee, granted possession of the farm equipment replevied but dismissed appellee\u2019s \u201cAmendment to Complaint and Report of Sale\u201d because of \u201cimproper joinder in an action of replevin.\u201d Subsequently, appellee brought the present action for a deficiency judgment as asserted in the previous replevin action. Appellant answered claiming damages for malicious prosecution and asserting non-compliance with our Uniform Commercial Code; i.e., Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 85-9-501-507 (Add. 1961). Appellant moved for summary judgment on the theory that the former action was res judicata and appellee had elected to replevy and was, therefore, limited to that remedy. Appellee answered with responsive pleadings. The denial of appellant\u2019s motion for summary judgment was then appealed without further determination of the cause.\nWe do not reach the merits of appellant\u2019s contentions. The denial of appellant\u2019s motion for summary judgment, being merely interlocutory, is not a final order and, therefore, is not reviewable on appeal. Widmer v. Ft. Smith Veh. & Mach. Co., 244 Ark. 971, 429 S.W. 2d 63 (1968). See also Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Tenn. v. Gilkey, 255 Ark. 1060, 505 S.W. 2d 200 (1974); Ross v. McDaniel, 252 Ark. 253, 478 S.W. 2d 430 (1972); and Deposit Guaranty v. River Valley, 247 Ark. 226, 444 S.W. 2d 880 (1969).\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "FRANK Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. H. Drew, for appellant.",
      "David F. Gillison, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "C. A. BAWCOM v. ALLIS-CHALMERS CREDIT CORPORATION\n74-12\n508 S.W. 2d 741\nOpinion delivered May 13, 1974\nW. H. Drew, for appellant.\nDavid F. Gillison, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0569-01",
  "first_page_order": 605,
  "last_page_order": 606
}