{
  "id": 1897160,
  "name": "Grace vs. The State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Grace v. State",
  "decision_date": "1882-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "97",
  "last_page": "100",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "40 Ark. 97"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Conn. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Conn.",
      "case_ids": [
        12131391
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/conn/1/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 3905,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.436,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.598191561288379e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9258470281472009
    },
    "sha256": "b9ceb02fbe09d5076965e4cf23fb309c377be9a025dfd1adebc3889a0badc4fe",
    "simhash": "1:59721b998c0dccf8",
    "word_count": 696
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:35.838243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Grace vs. The State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Smith, J.\nGrace was indicted for removing beyond the limits of Johnson county certain cotton and corn, \u201con which a lien did then and there exist, in favor of H. E. Hudspeth as the landlord and owner of the land on which the same were produced without the consent of the said Hudspeth.\u201d His demurrer to the indictment was overruled and an exception noted. Upon the trial, which resulted in his conviction, it appeared that the contract between him and Hudspeth was verbal and that no lien or notice of lien had been recorded or filed. He ^moved the following instruction which was refused': \u201cIf the jury find from the evidence that the landlord\u2019s lien upon said corn and cotton had never been recorded or filed, they must acquit.\u201d\nIn his motion for a new trial he incorporates the refusal of the Court to give this direction and also alleges that the verdict was contrary to law. He also moved in arrest of judgment on account of the insufficiency of the indictment to charge a public offense.\nThe act of February 3rd, 1875, provides that any person who shall remove, b\u00e9yond the limits of this State, or of any county wherein the lien may be recorded, property of any kind, upon which a lien shall exist, by virtue of a mortgage or deed of trust, or by contract of parties or by operation of law, without the consent of the person in whose favor such lien shall have been created, or exists by law, shall be guilty of a felony.\nSection 1409 of Gantt\u2019s Digest, of which this act is amendatory only made it punishable to remove property upon which there existed a recorded lien.\nIt was probably the intention of the Legislature to extend the law so as to cover removals of property bound by an unrecorded lien. But by using the language of the old Statute, which described only one of the two classes of cases designed to be reached, and by endeavoring to express in one section what could have been more appropriately said in two or more, obscurity and confusion have resulted. Grace\u2019s ease appears to be within the mischief intended to be remedied, but not within the words of the act.\nNow the offence is purely statutory. It is not a crime in itself to remove property that is subject to a lien; it is only so by the prohibition of the statute. And \u201cin expounding penal statutes, it is an established rule, that the construction must he strict as against the defendant, hut liberal in his favor.\u201d Meyers vs. State, 1 Conn. 502, Bishop on Statutory Crimes, Secs. 190, 196-7.\nOur conclusion is, that to make the removal of crops subject to a landlord\u2019s lien beyond the county a crime, the lien must be recorded. Where the lease is by parol, this is of course impossible.\nReversed and remanded with directions to sustain a demurer to the indictment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Smith, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Idus L. Fielder tor Appellant.",
      "Moore, Attorney-General for'the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Grace vs. The State.\n1. Criminal Law : Removing mortgaged property; construction of Statute.\nIt is no crime to remove from tbe county a crop on which there is an unrecorded landlord\u2019s lien. The Statute of February 3, 1875, inhibits the removal of property only when the lien is recorded.\nAPPEAL from Johnson Circuit Court.\nHon. G. S. Cunningham, Circuit Judge.\nIdus L. Fielder tor Appellant.\n1. The indictment is fatally defective.\n2. The Act upon which it was based admits of but one construction and that is: it is made a felony to remove the property, etc., where the lien is recorded.\nIf by any possible distortion of the Statute it could he held to apply to unrecorded liens in cases where the property is removed beyond the limits of the State, the rule certainly could not extend to cases of removal beyond the limits of the County, because the language of the Statute is: \u201cor of any county wherein the lien may be reeorded,\u201d etc.\nMoore, Attorney-General for'the State.\nThis case can only be determined by the construction of the words of the act, and for the purpose of having it construed we submit it without argument, instead of confessing error."
  },
  "file_name": "0097-01",
  "first_page_order": 95,
  "last_page_order": 98
}