{
  "id": 1320406,
  "name": "Heaslet v. Spratlin",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heaslet v. Spratlin",
  "decision_date": "1891-02-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "187",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ark. 185"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "2 Ark,, 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1848221
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "349"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/2/0209-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ark., 572",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725266
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/33/0572-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Ark., 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1887788
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/48/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893429
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 Ark., 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1913326
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/52/0550-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2781,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.721,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.277196482493199e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8705480512570424
    },
    "sha256": "e923abc871417ce2e574ba914b4a06e84263e14d34a6c810b73ff9ebe1264b47",
    "simhash": "1:70340df64b122933",
    "word_count": 478
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:43.544850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Heaslet v. Spratlin."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockrill, C. J.\nAs the suit was by an administrator to recover a debt claimed to be due to his intestate, the defendant was not a competent witness to testify to transactions with and statements made by the intestate in reference to the matter in controversy. Sec. 2, schedule to const, of' 1874. See Nunnally v. Becker, 52 Ark., 550. But the record does not disclose that objection was made to the introduction of the testimony, and it cannot be raised here for the first time.\nThe judgment for the defendant cannot be sustained,, however. The receipt for money paid to the intestate, which was the foundation of the defense, does not purport to be in full payment or a release of the debt which the defendant owed. The due bill which represented his debt was-not surrendered to him, and the partial payment was made in money after the debt was due. The case stands, then, only upon the defendant\u2019s testimony of the parol release. But that, by all previous decisions of the court, was not an executed release, but only an agreement for a release based upon no consideration and therefore void. Gordon v. Moore, 44 Ark., 349.\nReverse and remand.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockrill, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gibson & Holt for appellant.",
      "W. H. HalliBurton for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Heaslet v. Spratlin.\nDecided February 7, 1891.\n_Accord unexecuted\u2014Part payment.\nThe acceptance of part payment of a debt, witnessed by a due bill, in full satisfaction thereof, but without surrender of the instrument, is an agreement for a release which is based upon no consideration, and therefore void.\nAPPEAL from Arkansas Circuit Court.\nJohn M. Elliott, Judge.\nHeaslet, as administrator of Mills, brought suit against Spratlin on a due bill for $150. The latter in defense testi\u25a0fied that, after the instrument was executed, Mills agreed to take $125 in full payment of the debt; that he paid this \u25a0amount and took Mill\u2019s receipt therefor, which is as follows:\n\u201c October 22, 1887.\n\u201c Received of E. J. Spratlin ($125) one hundred and twenty-five dollars, as payment on due bill held by me.\n\u201c P. B. Mills.\u201d\nThe cause was tried without a jury, and judgment was-rendered for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.\nGibson & Holt for appellant.\n1. The testimony of appellee was inadmissible. Sec. 2, sched. to const. 1874; 48 Ark., 133; 52 id., 550.\n2. The receipt, if admissible at all, only showed a part payment after the note was due, and only extinguished the note pro tatito. 2 Dan. on Neg. Inst., sec. 1289, p. 309; 33 Ark., 572.\nW. H. HalliBurton for appellee.\n1. The testimony of appellee pertained to the genuineness of the receipt, and not to transactions with appellant\u2019s intestate, and is not within the constitutional prohibition.\n2. The receipt showed, and was intended as, an accord and satisfaction, and a discharge of the entire indebtedness, and is binding. 2 Ark,, 209; 44 id., 349; 33 id., 572; 21 Am. L. Reg., N. S., 637."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 211,
  "last_page_order": 213
}