{
  "id": 8728998,
  "name": "Dardenne vs. Bennett et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dardenne v. Bennett",
  "decision_date": "1842-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "458",
  "last_page": "459",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 Ark. 458"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Ark. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8728663
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/3/0478-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ark. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 1995,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.47329245836340267
    },
    "sha256": "fe7c1ff66724d3776617ccc54ba2b6bbcca527c5bdbb606405c9067e19d3d972",
    "simhash": "1:fb8e98b5db671c76",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:34.553089+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Dardenne vs. Bennett et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "By the Court,\nDickinson, J.\nThe Court, in the case of Bertrand vs. Byrd, decided at the last term, held, that the clause \u201c in cujus rei\u201d is not essential to a deed or bond, and that our present Revised Code does not change the law in that particular. The demurrer was, therefore, properly overruled.\nIt is too late to question the assignments. The defendant below should have craved oyer of them, as well as of the original obligations, if he wished to bring the fact of the assignments to the notice of the Court. He simply craved oyer of the originals. This was granted. The assignments are wholly distinct matters, and so it has been ruled in this Court, in the case of McLain et al. vs. Onstott, 3 Ark. 483. See, also, 1 Saund. 9, and 2 Salk. 498.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dickinson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jas. Yell, for plaintiffs in error,",
      "Hempstead & Johnson, contra,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Dardenne vs. Bennett et al.\nThe clause of in cujus rei, &c., is not necessary to'constilute a scaled instrument, under our statute.\nCraving oyer of the instrument sued on, does not entitle the party to oyer of the assignments on it, nor place them on the record.\nThis was an action of debt, determined in the Jefferson Circuit Court, in April, 1842, before the Hon. Isaac Baker, one of the Circuit Judges. Bennett, Morrill & Co. sued Dardenne on two bonds, each executed to a third person, and' assigned to the plaintiffs. One of the bonds contained the words \u201cwitness my hand and seal.\u201d The other did not. The defendant craved oyer, and the original bonds, but not the assignments, were placed upon the record. He then demurred, because one instrument was not a bond, and the declaration did not allege that the words \u201c witness my hand and seal\u201d were in the other. Demurrer overruled, and final judgment. Dardenne brought error.\nJas. Yell, for plaintiffs in error,\ncited Rev. S\u00ed. pp. 107 and 187.\nHempstead & Johnson, contra,\nreferred to Bertrand vs. Byrd, ante, p. 195; Gould on Pi. 461; 1 East. 636; 1 Saund. 338, n. 3; Co. Lit. 72, a.; Yelv. 195; Hob. 233; Com. Dig. Pleader, 271; McLain el al. vs. Onstoit, 3 Ark. 478."
  },
  "file_name": "0458-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 459
}