{
  "id": 8724461,
  "name": "DESOTO, INC v. Lawrence A. CROW",
  "name_abbreviation": "DeSoto Inc. v. Crow",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-31",
  "docket_number": "74-333",
  "first_page": "882",
  "last_page": "885",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "257 Ark. 882"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "520 S.W.2d 307"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "468 P. 2d 444",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 S.W. 898",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1923,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 Ark. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1357221
      ],
      "year": 1923,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/157/0385-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 332,
    "char_count": 5009,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.902,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.85428606294546e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8997783268445381
    },
    "sha256": "831e94ca2dbb3bbaa9595e48a5e26d0bca24d69f57ff62ae07f49c98962aa775",
    "simhash": "1:93d82a544f1d25d9",
    "word_count": 860
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:07.797047+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DESOTO, INC v. Lawrence A. CROW"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lyle Brown, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the trial court denying a motion to vacate a judgment against DeSoto, Inc. as garnishee and in favor of appellee Crow in the amount of $3,022.10. The essence of DeSoto\u2019s argument is that notice was never given to DeSoto that such a judgment might be entered.\nTwo identical writs of garnishment were issued against DeSoto. The first writ was dated June 25, 1974 and reads as follows:\n\u201cTHE STATE OF ARKANSAS TO THE SHERIFF OF PULASKI COUNTY:\n\u201cWhereas, Lawrence A. Crow on the 16th day of May, 1974, in the Circuit Court obtained a Judgment against John Pless and Johnny M. Pless for $3,022.10 debt and damages, and court costs, which Judgment remains unsatisfied; and it being represented to the Court by said plaintiff that the Garnishee, DeSoto Incorporated is indebted to said defendant or has in its hands or possession goods, chattels, moneys, credits or effects belonging to said defendant;\n\u201cNOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby commended to summon the said DeSoto, Incorporated to appear in this Court within 10 days from the date of service hereof and then and there to answer what goods, chattels, moneys, credits or effects it may have in its hands or possessions belonging to said defendant to satisfy said Judgment, and to answer such further interrogatories as may then and there be exhibited against it; and you will make due return of this writ into said court without delay.\u201d\nAnother writ was issued under date of July 10, 1974. The only difference between the two writs is the date of the issue and the date of service. The writs of garnishment have two fatal defects. First, there is no notice that failure to answer could result in a judgment against garnishee. The writ merely advises garnishee to appear and answer questions propounded and to be propounded. Ark. Stat. \u00a7 29-107 (Repl. 1962) provides: \u201cAll judgments, orders, sentences, and decrees, made, rendered, or pronounced, by any of the courts of the State, against any one without notice, actual or constructive, and all proceedings had under such judgments, orders, sentences, or decrees, shall be absolutely null and void\u201d.\nThe writ of garnishment served the purpose of a summons. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-306 (Repl. 1962) provides: \u201cThe summons shall be directed to the sheriff of the county, and command him to summon the defendant or defendants named, therein to answer the complaint filed by the plaintiff, giving his name, at the time stated therein, under the penalty of the complaint being taken for confessed, or of the defendant being proceeded against for contempt of court on his failure to do so. The summons shall be dated upon the day it is issued, and signed by the clerk\u201d.\nUnder our holding in Wilson v. Overturf, 157 Ark. 385, 248 S.W. 898 (1923), the garnishee did not state a good cause of action.\nIn the case of Ware v. Phillips, 468 P. 2d 444 (Wash. 1970) the court said: \u201cIt is fundamental that a notice to be meaningful must apprise the party to whom it is directed that his person or property is in jeopardy.\u201d\nThe second defect is that the garnishee is required by the writ to appear and answer the same within ten days. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 31-504 provides: \u201cSuch writs [of garnishment] shall be directed, served and returned in the same manner as writs of summons\u201d.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-308 provides: \u201cIn all civil actions the time fixed in the summons for the defendant to answer shall be within twenty [20] days after service when the summons is directed within the State, and thirty [30] days when it is directed outside the State\u201d. Section 27-309 provides: \u201cThe summons shall be made returnable twenty (20) days after the issuance thereof unless otherwise ordered by the court\u201d.\nIt is argued that Arkansas has a ten-day statute for the answering of garnishment. We are referred to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 31-512 [1962 Repl.]: \u201cIf any garnishee, after having been served with a writ of garnishment ten [10] days before the return day thereof, shall neglect or refuse to answer the interrogatories exhibited against him on or before the return day of such writ, the court of justice before whom such matter is pending shall enter judgment against such garnishee for the full amount specified in the plaintiff\u2019s judgment against the original defendant, together with costs\u201d. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 31-512 is no longer the law as it pertains to circuit courts. It is true the annotated statutes do not show an amendment, but the facts are that it was amended by implication. \u00a7 \u00a7 27-308, 27-309, supra.\nWe are urged by appellant to declare some of the garnishment statutes unconstitutional. We decline to so hold. The effect of our rulings herein is to hold that the garnishment forms do not meet constitutional due process, and that the garnishee is entitled to twenty (20) days notice.\nReversed and Dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lyle Brown, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dobbs, Pryor <2? Hubbard, for appellant.",
      "Sanford and Pate, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DESOTO, INC v. Lawrence A. CROW\n74-333\n520 S.W. 2d 307\nOpinion delivered March 31, 1975\nDobbs, Pryor <2? Hubbard, for appellant.\nSanford and Pate, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0882-01",
  "first_page_order": 926,
  "last_page_order": 929
}