{
  "id": 1872449,
  "name": "Bell and Miller v. Matheny",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bell v. Matheny",
  "decision_date": "1880-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "572",
  "last_page": "575",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ark. 572"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ark, 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1862623
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/14/0427-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 Ark, 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727290
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/24/0545-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3443,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.639732073322448e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5277251685329917
    },
    "sha256": "7f344e7dbb96f4849281efd92691c20d8aa0e2e9d531cb8c4969c7a79df499f8",
    "simhash": "1:f00e11735a548dc9",
    "word_count": 613
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:42.990471+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Bell and Miller v. Matheny."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harrison, J.\nNeither his lien for rent, nor his attachment for it, gave the plaintiff' a right to the possession of the corn; and though there was some evidence that it had been set apart as intended for him, there was no evidence that the rent was payable in corn, or that he had accepted it, or even knew of such setting apart.\nThere was no evidence to sustain the verdict, and the motion for a new trial should have been granted.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harrison, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hawes H. Coleman, for appellants:",
      "John W. Miller, per se:"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Bell and Miller v. Matheny.\nUeplbvin : Landlord\u2019s lien will not support.\nNeither a landlord\u2019s lien for rent, nor an attachment for it, on the crop, gives him a right to the possession of'the crop.\nAPPEAL from Clark Circuit Court.\nHon. A. B. \"Williams, Special Judge.\nreporter\u2019s statement.\nMatheny brought replevin against W. T. Bell and J. W. Miller, before a justice of the peace in Clark county, for 100 bushels of corn, of which he claimed, in his affidavit, to be the owner, and entitled to immediate possession; and that it was unlawfully detained by the defendants. The order of delivery was executed by the officers taking the-corn and delivering it to the plaintiff. The defendants filed an answer, denying the plaintiff\u2019s ownership and right of possession, and their wrongful detention of the corn. On the trial, there were verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and the defendants appealed to the circuit court.\nTJpon the trial in the circuit court, the plaintiff Matheny, testified as follows: \u201c I rented to Bell twenty-five acres of land, to be planted, half in corn, and half in cotton. The corn was raised and gathered, and put in a pen in the field, and stayed there until after the trial before the-justice of the peace; then it was put in my lot. The corn was divided. I think 100 bushels were put in the field, and afterward were put in crib near my house. There was other corn; don\u2019t know how much; don\u2019t know how the corn was divided. Think Bell made 200 bushels or more.. The corn was put in my crib by Fullerton, who told me that Miller employed him to haul it. It was not put there until after it was replevied. I never had it in my possession until after it was replevied. I was forbidden to take-it. I was not present when it was divided. Part was hauled t\u00f3 Mr., Bell, and part put up-in the field. Don\u2019t know what, part Bell took to his house.\u201d\nHale, witness for the plaintiff, testified that he lived on the place, and Bell told him he had gathered his part of the corn and hauled it home, and had put Matheny\u2019s in a \u25a0cotton-pen, some 100 bushels, and worth seventy-five cents per bushel.\nMiller, for the defendants, testified that Matheny had \u2022sued Bell by attachment for his rent, and had seized the \u25a0crop and obtained judgment against Bell, and witness made Bell\u2019s appeal-bond; and to secure witness, Bell delivered to him his crop of corn and cotton. Matheny after-wards replevied the corn. Before he replevied it, witness proposed that he would haul the corn to his house, if he would be responsible to witness for it, which he refused to \u25a0do, and then replevied it, and it was hauled to Matheny\u2019s house by Fullerton for the constable.\nThis was all the evidence. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff, and defendants appealed.\nHawes H. Coleman, for appellants:\nAttachment lies \u2014 not replevin.\nJohn W. Miller, per se:\nLandlord has only lien on crop \u2014 no title. 24 Ark, 545.\nAppellee used the corn, and could not have judgment for its value. 14 Ark, 427."
  },
  "file_name": "0572-01",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 573
}