{
  "id": 1911618,
  "name": "Cockrum v. Williamson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cockrum v. Williamson",
  "decision_date": "1890-04-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "131",
  "last_page": "132",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 Ark. 131"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark., 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900542
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "157"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/38/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ark., 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885709
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/27/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ark., 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "185-6"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark., 31",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881097
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0031-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 Ark., 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875710
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/34/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 How. 135",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "How.",
      "case_ids": [
        5680677
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/61/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Pick., 418",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pick.",
      "case_ids": [
        2070955
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/18/0425-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 U. S., 641",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 Me., 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Me.",
      "case_ids": [
        8738774
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/me/13/0250-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 2929,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.647,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1518088387876282e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5815895057974423
    },
    "sha256": "6d09c4147952ad1f3e3cf42990bbe684cbc077fa13e413e8fd724c5545b47dc5",
    "simhash": "1:c61a8ca174415658",
    "word_count": 498
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:24:25.796000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cockrum v. Williamson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIf the order of the county court open-the road was valid and binding upon the land owner,, as the plaintiff seems to concede, then the road overseer who entered upon the land, in pursuance of the order, had authority to remove the fence where it obstructed the highway, without becoming responsible for injury done to the plaintiff\u2019s personal property by stock entering the premises.\njf order was void the entrv of the overseer was a ' trespass on realty, and the justice had no jurisdiction to try the cause.\nIn neither event could the plaintiff recover.\nReverse the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Horton & Horton for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cockrum v. Williamson.\nDecided April 12, 1890.\n\u2022I. Road Overseer \u2014 Injury caused by opening road \u2014 Liability.\nA road overseer wlro, in pnrsrrance of a valid order of the county court opening a road, enters upon another\u2019s land and removes a fence, is not liable for injury to personal property caused by stock entering the premises.\n2. Trespass on realty \u2014 Jurisdiction of justice of the peace.\nIf such order of the county court was void, the entry was a trespass on realty for which a justice of the peace has no jusrisdiction to try an action of damages.\nAPPEAL from Baxter Circuit Court.\nR. H. Powell, Judge.\nWilliamson sued Cockrum in the court of a justice of the peace for damages for a trespass. There were no written pleadings. The evidence showed that the county court of Baxter county appointed viewers to lay out a public highway ; that the viewers made report as required by section 5936, Mansfield\u2019s Digest, recommending that the road be established across the enclosed land of plaintiff; that the county court approved the report and ordered defendant, the overseer, to establish the road; that, pursuant to such order, defendant laid down plaintiff\u2019s fence on both sides and established the road. In consequence of such action on the part of defendant, stock got into plaintiff\u2019s field and pulled three or four hundred pounds of seed cotton out 'of a pen in the field and destroyed it.\nVerdict for plaintiff in the circuit court.\nDefendant appealed.\nHorton & Horton for appellant.\nI. Instruction No. 1, asked by defendant is clearly the law. The order of the county court establishing a highway through the plaintiff\u2019s land protected the overseer in the discharge of his duty in removing obstructions. Mansf. Dig., secs. 5937, 5902-3; Lewis on Em. Dom., sec. 92 and note 5; secs. 94, 95, 96, 589; Mills, Em. Dom., secs. 283-4-5; 13 Me., 250; 99 U. S., 641-2; 1 Pick., 418; 20 How. 135-\n2. Section 5938 is directory; no order necessary to authorize the overseer to work road. Cooley, Const. Lim. (5th ed.), pp. 88-9-90, 61, 92, 93; 34 Ark., 491; 30 Ark., 31.\n3. Plaintiff\u2019s remedy, if damaged, is pointed out by statute. Mansf. Dig., secs. 5934-5-6-7. This is exclusive. 29 Ark., 174, 185-6. After confirmation of viewers\u2019report,, it will be presumed that everything required by law was done. 27 Ark., 292; 38 Ark., 150, 157."
  },
  "file_name": "0131-01",
  "first_page_order": 155,
  "last_page_order": 156
}