{
  "id": 8727097,
  "name": "Fortenbury vs. Tunstall",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fortenbury v. Tunstall",
  "decision_date": "1843-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "263",
  "last_page": "264",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ark. 263"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "3 Mon. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mon.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Bibb, 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Bibb",
      "case_ids": [
        6424042
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ky/5/0584-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 188,
    "char_count": 2543,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.527,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20862142928023988
    },
    "sha256": "72de7207c6ae0769af2d2bd76dc9fddbb561b39f5c6ac432815456a8d701f13c",
    "simhash": "1:dc7d3d55f98b6d12",
    "word_count": 422
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:08.123138+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fortenbury vs. Tunstall."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "By the Court,\nLacy, J.\nThis suit was originally commenced before a justice of the peace, and judgment given in favor of the plaintiff. An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court; and upon the trial, the ap-pellee moved the Court to dismiss the action. The Court overruled the motion, to which there was on exception; and the case is now here on error. The instrument sued on is in these words: \u201cDue Ringgold & Redman ten dollars and forty-eight cents, payable in good cotton;\u201d and it is subscribed by the plaintiffin error. Ringgold & Redman assigned the instrument to the present defendant. It is evident the justice had no jurisdiction of the case. No action but covenant will lie \u00f3n it; and such actions are expressly excepted out of the justice\u2019s jurisdiction by the constitution. Consequently, the Circuit Court should, on the defendant\u2019s motion, have dismissed the suit for want of jurisdiction. Judgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lacy, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pike & Baldwin, for appellant.",
      "Fowler and Byers, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Fortenbury vs. Tunstall.\nOn an instrument under seal, in these words: \u201cDue A.'B. $10 43 cents, value received, payable in good cotton,\u201d no action but covenant will lie ; and consequently a justice of the peace can have no jurisdiction.\nThis was an appeal from a justice of the peace, determined in Independence Circuit Court, in June, 1842, before the Hon. Thomas Johnson, one of the circuit judges. Tunstall, as assignee of Ring-gold, surviving partner of Redman, sued Fortenbury on the following bond: u 10 48. Due Ringgold & Redman ten dollars and forty-eight cents, value rec\u2019d, payable in good cotton. Batesville, April 7,1832.\u201d Before the justice, the defendant, in November, 1841, pleaded payment and the statute of limitations. Judgment before the justice for plaintiff, and appeal. When the case came into the Circuit Court, the defendant moved to dismiss, for want of jurisdiction in the justice. Motion uverruled. The case was then submitted to the Court. Motion for non-suit overruled. Evidence heard by the Court; judgment for plaintiff, and appeal.\nPike & Baldwin, for appellant.\nThe instrument sued on in this case, filed before the justice, and by him sent up to the Circuit Court,, showed on its face that he had no jurisdiction. No action but covenant would lie on it. It is an obligation lor ten dollars and forty-eight, cents\u2019 worth of cotton. Mattox vs. Craig, 2 Bibb, 584. Campbell vs. Weister, 1 Lilt. 30. January vs. Henry, 3 Mon. 8. Robinson vs*. JY'oble\u2019s AdJm., 8 Peters, 181. Dorsey vs. Lawrence, Hardin, 509. And this Court decided the same principle at its last term.\nFowler and Byers, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0263-01",
  "first_page_order": 263,
  "last_page_order": 264
}