{
  "id": 1746987,
  "name": "James H. SMITH v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland",
  "decision_date": "1983-04-04",
  "docket_number": "82-297",
  "first_page": "38",
  "last_page": "40",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "279 Ark. 38"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "648 S.W.2d 475"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3920,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.806,
    "sha256": "2c101aa3bff6981bde709e6942614c2f38e15530c62db9f20538620781dbced3",
    "simhash": "1:2bbfc199baa3da1e",
    "word_count": 634
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:56.229407+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James H. SMITH v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.\nThe Crittenden County Chancery Court held that appellant, James Smith, had no interest in property which had been executed upon by appellee, Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland. On appeal we affirm.\nFidelity had an unsatisfied judgment against James Browder for $24,303.11. James Browder was the owner of the Jewelry Nook at 500 East Broadway in West Memphis. On September 10, 1981, appellant allegedly bought $5,000 worth of used jewelry from the Jewelry Nook. Appellant obtained a receipt from James Browder which indicated that appellant had paid cash dollars for \u201c79 Rec. dia, wed. & men rings,\u201d and \u201c12 Gold necklaces.\u201d Appellant did not take possession of the merchandise at the time of sale. And, even though he testified that the jewelry was tagged by a Jewelry Nook employee and that a list of the jewelry was made at that time, appellant was unable to produce this list at trial.\nAppellant testified that around the first of November he took possession of the jewelry he had bought and began doing business at Browder\u2019s Jewelry Store at 526 East Broadway in West Memphis. Appellant stated that at the time the store opened, his wife wrote out a three page inventory list of the jewelry which was introduced into evidence at trial. Appellant further testified that he sold $2,000 worth of this jewelry, which he replaced with additional jewelry he purchased from James Browder around the latter part of December. No receipt for the additional jewelry was introduced at trial, although appellant testified that he kept track of the jewelry by adding it on to the end of his inventory list.\nAppellant allegedly went into business with James Browder\u2019s brother, Larry, but testimony at trial revealed that Larry had a full time job as a bus driver and that James Browder actually ran Browder\u2019s Jewelry store. The building lease was in James Browder\u2019s name, he signed all the checks for the store, and one witness testified that he observed things being moved from the Jewelry Nook to Browder\u2019s Jewelry Store in October. There was also testimony to the effect that James Browder made various business arrangements for the store, including one with Delta Auction to auction off the jewelry when it became obvious that Browder\u2019s Jewelry Store was not profitable. However, before the auction was held, Fidelity executed on its judgment against Browder, directing the sheriff to take possession of the real and personal property located at Browder\u2019s Jewelry Store. On February 9,1982, the sheriff took possession of all the merchandise at that location, including the jewelry which appellant alleges belonged to him, and inventoried it.\nThe chancellor held that all the merchandise in Browder\u2019s Jewelry Store was subject to execution, finding that it was not possible to identify appellant\u2019s property from the evidence introduced at trial. We cannot say that this finding is clearly erroneous. The list of the jewelry that was allegedly made at the time of purchase was not introduced at trial. The $5,000 receipt which James Browder gave appellant indicates that appellant purchased 12 necklaces, yet no necklaces were listed on appellant\u2019s inventory sheet. Nor is there any way to reconcile appellant\u2019s inventory sheet with the inventory list prepared by the sheriff when he executed on the property. For example, rings marked \u201chere\u201d on appellant\u2019s inventory sheet were apparently not there when the sheriff inventoried the property.\nThere was sufficient evidence from which the trial judge could have found that the purported sale of jewelry by James Browder to appellant was a subterfuge and an attempt by James Browder to avoid paying his just debts.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rieves, Shelton if Mayton, for appellant.",
      "William Palma Rainey, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James H. SMITH v. FIDELITY & DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND\n82-297\n648 S.W.2d 475\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 4, 1983\nRieves, Shelton if Mayton, for appellant.\nWilliam Palma Rainey, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0038-01",
  "first_page_order": 62,
  "last_page_order": 64
}