{
  "id": 1872393,
  "name": "Reavis v. Barnes",
  "name_abbreviation": "Reavis v. Barnes",
  "decision_date": "1880-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ark. 575"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 Ark., 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 Ark., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2852,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.14123898440093e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9561665564285794
    },
    "sha256": "117112436d462c864403fa8e493a94fb32c8e0c895b846b9098bd6f9c9459847",
    "simhash": "1:7598d9a8255bb68f",
    "word_count": 512
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:05:42.990471+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Reavis v. Barnes."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harrison, J.\nAlthough the defendant when he bought the cotton from Kirby may have known of the plaintiff\u2019s lien for rent, the property in it passed to him, and the money for which he sold it, as a matter of course, belonged to him.\nThe ground of the action for money had and received by the defendant for the use of the plaintiff is, that the defendant had received money for the benefit of the plaintiff under such circumstances as to create a privity of contract between him and the plaintiff. 2 Chit. Con, 899.\nHad the cotton been tortiously taken, the money for which the defendant sold it, would have been received by him for the use of Kirby, and not for the plaintiff.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s only remedy against the defendant, if under the circumstances he was entitled to any, was by specific attachment whilst it remained in the defendant\u2019s possession, or after the sale of it, by suit in equity for the payment of the rent out of the proceeds.\nThe judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harrison, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smoote $ McRae, for appellants :"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Reavis v. Barnes.\n1. Landlord\u2019s Lien: Sis remedy against purchaser of tenant's crop.\nA landlord can not maintain an action for money had and received to his use, against one who has purchased and sold his tenant\u2019s crop with knowledge that his rent was due and unpaid. His remedy, if any, is by specific attachment while the crop is in the purchaser\u2019s hands, or by bill in equity after the sale, to have the proceeds appropriated to pay ment of his rents.\nERROR to Nevada Circuit Court.\nHon. J. K. Young, Circuit Judge.\nreporter\u2019s statement.\nReavis rented land to Kirby for the year 1877, for the sum of $68, on which Kirby made a crop and in the fall, gathered the cotton and sold and delivered it to Barnes in part satisfaction of a mortgage he had given him upon it. Barnes shipped and sold the cotton for more than $68, and applied the proceeds to the mortgage, which they were insufficient to pay. He knew when he purchased and received the cotton that Reavis\u2019 rent was due and unpaid. Reavis finding no other means out of which to collect his rent, sued Barnes before a justice of the peace for the $68 as money had and received to and for his use, for cotton on which he claimed a landlord\u2019s lien for rent.\nThe finding and judgment in the justice\u2019s court were for the plaintiff, and the defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the finding and judgment were for the defendant; and the plaintiff, after motion for new trial overruled, filed his bill of exceptions and brought error.\nSmoote $ McRae, for appellants :\nEor general principles to sustain the action, cited Green-leaf on Ev., sees. 117, 118, 120; GMtty on Con. (9 Am. ed.), pp. 526, 527; Revender v. Hall, (Ala).\nThe appellee:\nCited Puckett v. Read, 81 Ark., 131; Gantt's Digest, see. 4098, et seq., 4103.\nShould have pursued statutory lien by statutory method. 21 Ark., 545 ; 3 Par. on Con., 276 (6th ed)."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 574
}