{
  "id": 8723657,
  "name": "Cox v. Lee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cox v. Lee",
  "decision_date": "1887-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "456",
  "last_page": "458",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ark. 456"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark., 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1890466
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/46/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 Ark, 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1896172
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/41/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ark., 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1897238
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/40/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ark., 476",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1887725
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/48/0476-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ark., 411",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 3026,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3544637158382593
    },
    "sha256": "86c2e6c42c1e97d956769a3aa01d3696a2a7c731e994230c82f698eff36144a2",
    "simhash": "1:eee5bbe568115e9f",
    "word_count": 519
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:56:08.326499+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cox v. Lee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION.\nCockriI\u00edL, C. J.\nWhen a plaintif\u00ed' in execution feels-aggrieved at the action of a justice of the peace in ordering the issuance of a supersedeas to prevent the sale of his judgment debtor\u2019s property, as exempt from sale-under execution, his remedy is by appeal to the circuit court. Mansf. Dig., sec. 3006; Winter v. Simpson, 42 Ark., 411; Cason v. Bone, 43 Id., 17; Garrett v. Wade, 46 Id., 493.\nThe justice has no power to revoke the order and recall the supersedeas. Dunnagan v. Shaffer, 48 Ark., 476. If he undertakes to do so, and the officer sells the-property under the execution to the plaintiff, the defendant may recover it in replevin.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CockriI\u00edL, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Davis & Bulloch and Hall & Lewers, for appellants.",
      "Olendenning & Bead, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cox v. Lee.\nEXEMPTION : Supersedeas on claim of exemption: Creditor's remedy.\nWhen an execution creditor is aggrieved by the order of a justice of the peace, granting a supersedeas to prevent the sale of property claimed as exempt, his remedy is by appeal to the circuit,court. (Mans/. Digsec. 3006.) The justice has no power to recall the supersedeas.\nAPPEAL from Logan circuit court.\nJohn S. Little, Judge.\nSTATEMENT.\n\u2019 Cox sued Lee in a justice\u2019s court and recovered judgment for a debt amounting to $120. On this judgment an execution issued and was levied on certain personal property, which was advertised to be sold. Pursuant to a notice served on Cox, Lee filed with the justice his schedule, claiming the property as exempt, and obtained a1 supersedeas of the execution. Two days later, and before the day of sale, upon Cox\u2019s application the justice revoked bis order for tbe supersedeas and recalled it. Tbe officer having tbe execution tben proceeded to sell tbe property and Cox bought it. Lee recovered it from him in an action of replevin brought before another justice. Cox appealed to tbe circuit court, and from a judgment rendered there against him has appealed to this court.\nDavis & Bulloch and Hall & Lewers, for appellants.\nThe schedule filed by appellee was not a proper one, 40 Ark., 352, and the supersedeas improperly issued. It was the duty of the j ustice to recall it; and one justice of the peace has no jurisdiction to set aside, reinstate, ignore, supervise, or amend, the proceedings of another.\nPart of the judgment was for purchase money of property scheduled, and this property could not be scheduled. Mans/. Dig., sec. 4398. The schedule was not supported -by the affidavit required by law. Act March 9, 1877; 41 Ark, 249; 47 Id., 400; 40 Id., 352.\nThe supersedeas being improperly issued, was properly recalled by the j ustice.\nOlendenning & Bead, for appellee.\nThe supersedeas having once issued, the justice lost \u2022all control over it, and could not recall it. An appeal was the only remedy. The justice certainly could not recall it without notice to Lee. Mansf. Dig., sec. 5201.\nIt does not appear in the record that any part of the \u2022demand sued on, was for purchase money of part of the property scheduled. But if it was, it was appellants\u2019 duty to have asserted their right when the schedule was \u25a0filed. 46 Ark., 493."
  },
  "file_name": "0456-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 466
}