{
  "id": 1870965,
  "name": "King & Clopton, v. Blount",
  "name_abbreviation": "King v. Blount",
  "decision_date": "1881-05",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "115",
  "last_page": "116",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ark. 115"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "31 Ark., 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark., 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881125
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Yer., 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Yer.",
      "case_ids": [
        11266106
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/14/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Meigs, 398",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Meigs",
      "case_ids": [
        8542666
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/19/0398-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Humph., 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Hum.",
      "case_ids": [
        8541011
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/27/0561-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 2712,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.170923825907304e-08,
      "percentile": 0.475102216384044
    },
    "sha256": "0ca3cbfd38db5515d4323700e960e54952f1d46b5e7bf5b558214233e855d77d",
    "simhash": "1:9af916e587d96bce",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:57:17.182005+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "King & Clopton, v. Blount."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Harrison, J.\nThe lien of the landlord continues but for six months after the rent becomes due. Sec, 4098 Gantt\u2019sDigest.\nAnd where there has been a conversion of the crop, or a. portion of it, by one with knowledge of the lien, and it attaches in equity to the proceeds in his hands, its continuance is only for the same period, for equity follows the-law. Valentine v. Hamlett, Ad\u2019r., MS. Opinion.\nThe suit not having been commenced within six months-after the rent became due, and the lien having expired, no-equity or cause of action was shown in the complaint.\nThe,decree of the Court below is, therefore, reversed,, and the. complaint dismissed for the want of equity.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Harrison, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tappan & Horner, for appellants :",
      "John (J. Palmer, for appellees : \u25a0 \u25a0"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "King & Clopton, v. Blount.\n1. Landlord\u2019s Lien: Statute of Limitations.\nAn action to enforce the landlord\u2019s equitable lien against one acquiring the tenant\u2019s crop, with knowledge of the lien, will be barred after six months from the maturity of the rent.\nAPPEAL from Phillips Circuit Court in Chancery.\nHon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge.\nSTATEMENT.\nThis was an action at law by Blount against King & Clop-ton, to recover the proceeds of three bales of cotton, which the complainant alleged they had received from one Mackey, his tenant, in December, 1877, and sold and appropriated to Mackey\u2019s indebtedness to them, with knowledge of his landlord\u2019s lien upon it for rent for that year. The complaint was filed the thirty-first of May, 1878, and alleged that the rent was due the first day of November, 1877. A demurrer to the complaint was overruled, and by order of the Court, of its own motion, the 'Cause was transferred to the equity docket, and Mackey made a defendant. The defendants all answered, and depositions were taken and filed ; but as the case has been decided here solely upon the statute of limitations, a further statement of the pleadings and facts is unnecessary.\nUpon the hearing the decree was for Blount, and King & . \u25a0Clopton appealed.\nTappan & Horner, for appellants :\nThe rights of the landlord depend on sections of Gantt\u2019s Digest, from 4098 to 4104. He must enforce his lien on the crop in the manner prescribed.\nHe has no title to the crop. Upham, v. Dodd, 24 Ark.,. 545; Sevier v. Shaw & Barbour, 25 lb., 417; Smithy. Meyer, 25 lb., 609.\nThe law gives no right to follow the proceeds \u2014 only the' substance of the crop. See, under- like statutes, cases in Tennessee : 8 Humph., 561; 1 Meigs, 398 ; 6 Yer., 267 and 252 ; 7 lb., 494; approved in Upham v. Dodd (supra).\nApperson v. Moore, 30 Ark., 56, is in favor of a mortgagee, and not applicable. See also, Roberts v. Jacks, 31 Ark., 600, as to nature of landlord\u2019s lien.\nJohn (J. Palmer, for appellees : \u25a0 \u25a0\nRested on the law and facts disclosed by the record."
  },
  "file_name": "0115-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 114
}