{
  "id": 1320338,
  "name": "May v. Hutson",
  "name_abbreviation": "May v. Hutson",
  "decision_date": "1891-02-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "226",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 Ark. 226"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "41 Ark., 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1896172
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/41/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "53 Ark., 182",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1911718
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/53/0182-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1539,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.72,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1420408488207926e-07,
      "percentile": 0.578938385983121
    },
    "sha256": "060b6e32e0bb38891c6c6b91421c4541d8e544e22e574b40981f1d90ea7b874e",
    "simhash": "1:f6867ce76e68a696",
    "word_count": 267
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:43.544850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "May v. Hutson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe petition for a supesedeas filed by the r * ... appellee is defective in two particulars, viz., it does not state that he is a resident of the State, or that it contains a description of all the defendant\u2019s property, both real and personal. Without the allegations of both facts, it was insufficient to warrant the issuance of a supersedeas. Brown v. Peters, 53 Ark., 182. The petition is subject to amendment. If the facts justify it, both defects may be cured by amendment.\nReverse and remand for further proceedings.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Sol F. Clark for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "May v. Hutson.\nDecided February 21, 1891.\nExempt property\u2014Schedule\u2014Ainendment.\nA schedule of exempt property filed before a justice of the peace, which is insufficient because it does not set out all the debtor\u2019s property nor allege that he is a resident of the State, may be amended in the circuit court on appeal.\nAPPEAL from Johnson Circuit Court.\nJordan E. Cravens, Judge.\nAppellee in a justice\u2019s court filed a schedule of the property he desired to claim as exempt from execution, under section 3006 of Mansf. Dig., but failed to allege that it contained a complete description of his property, or that he was a resident of the State. Upon appeal to the circuit court he offered to amend the schedule. The court refused to permit the amendment, but held the schedule sufficient.\nSol F. Clark for appellant.\nThe schedule was defective. It does not purport to contain all the debtor\u2019s property. Mansf. Dig., sec. 3006; 41 Ark., 249. Nor does it show that he was a resident of the State. 41 Ark., 249."
  },
  "file_name": "0226-01",
  "first_page_order": 252,
  "last_page_order": 252
}