{
  "id": 1913347,
  "name": "Webb v. Arnold",
  "name_abbreviation": "Webb v. Arnold",
  "decision_date": "1889-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ark. 358"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "27 Mich., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mich.",
      "case_ids": [
        1954647
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mich/27/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 Me., 211",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Me.",
      "case_ids": [
        665805
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/me/32/0211-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 193,
    "char_count": 2861,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.695,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3138893425832935
    },
    "sha256": "00f58fb5854972c1315d3bfd1740f6438a4fe1ea26b6c8d81a2d87faa95ab923",
    "simhash": "1:f5adf44beec3c88f",
    "word_count": 521
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:40.922971+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Webb v. Arnold."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was evidence to justify the jury in finding that the landlord consented to the removal of the cot- \u00b0 # ton from the premises where it was grown, and it was in proof that the tenant was authorized by the landlord to sell two.or three bales of cotton to pay the Harwood debt, for which the landlord was surety. He sold two bales for $\u00a181, and out of the proceeds paid the Plarwood debt of something over ,$50, and devoted the residue to the payment of his creditors.\nThe consent of the landlord to the removal and sale of the cotton was the gist of the defense to the attachment, and when that was proved, the ground of the attachment failed. The failure to devote the excess of the proceeds of sale, made by consent of the landlord, to the payment of rent, was not a ground for attachment. The appellant has pointed out no error for which the judgment should be reversed.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Charles, M. Cook and Joseph M. Hill, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Webb v. Arnold.\nLandlord\u2019s Lien : Attachment to enforce.\nWhere a tenant, by the consent of his landlord, .removes part of the crop from the premises where it was grown, to sell it for the purpose of paying a debt to a third person, the failure to apply to the payment of the rent the excess of the proceeds after the satisfaction of the debt, is no ground for attachment.\nAPPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court.\nJohn S. Little, Judge.\nThis was a proceeding under sec. 4459 Mansf. Dig., to enforce by attachment the lien of a landlord on the crop of his tenant, consisting of corn and cotton. The statute provides that \u201c any landlord who has a lien on the crop for rent shall be entitled to bring suit before a justice of the peace, or in the Circuit Court, as the case may be, and have a writ of attachment for the recovery of the same, whether the rent be due or not, in the following cases:\n\u201c First. When the tenant is about to remove the crop from the premises without paying the rent.\n\u201c Second. When he has removed it, or any portion thereof, without the consent of the landlord.\u201d\nThe attachment was obtained in this case on th\u00e9 alleged ground that the tenant had removed the crop, or a portion of it, without the landlord\u2019s consent. On the trial there was evidence to show that the plaintiff had authorized the defendant to sell two or. three bales of the cotton for the purpose of paying a debt due to one Howard, and for which the plaintiff was surety. The judgment was for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed.\nCharles, M. Cook and Joseph M. Hill, for appellants.\nThe evidence in the cause shows that the tenant did remove a portion of the crop without the consent of the landlord. This was sufficient to sustain the attachment. Mansf. Dig., sec. \u2021\u202159 and Ark. Rep. passim. See, also, Jones on Liens, secs. 379, 1013.\nThe intention of the landlord must be inferred from all the \u201cattendant circumstances.\u201d 32 Me., 211; 27 Mich., 6; Jones Liens, sec. 379."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 386,
  "last_page_order": 387
}