{
  "id": 1322342,
  "name": "Field v. Anderson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Field v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1892-03-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "546",
  "last_page": "547",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ark. 546"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "7 Ark., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726998
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/7/0118-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Vt., 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        2356324
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/55/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 W. Va., 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "W. Va.",
      "case_ids": [
        8640474
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/w-va/21/0183-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ark., 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882954
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/29/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ark., 118",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726998
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/7/0118-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 129,
    "char_count": 1412,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.722,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1706657605952624e-07,
      "percentile": 0.586294992487979
    },
    "sha256": "53481b2f7e1ea5f5e7b71c2b561fd2af08ac42ec2132266e05c322c46fbfa0bb",
    "simhash": "1:5a5b9050c111f46e",
    "word_count": 256
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:46:22.231955+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Field v. Anderson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIt was necessary for the appellant either to produce the note or to account for it, in order to show that he was entitled to collect it. The allegation that it was lost was material. Norris v. Kellogg, 7 Ark., 118. That allegation was denied by the answer, it was not proved upon the trial, and the note was not produced. If there were no other reason for dismissing the complaint, that would be .sufficient.\nAffirm.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. W. Dickinson for appellant.",
      "James Murphy for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Field v. Anderson.\nDecided March 12, 1892.\nJLost note\u2014Proof.\nIn a suit to foreclose a mortgage an averment in the complaint that the note it was given to secure was lost is material, and must be proved if denied in the answer.\nAPPEAL from Desha Circuit Court in chancery.\nJohn M. Elliott, Judge.\nAppeal from a decree dismissing a bill to foreclose a mortgage. The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.\nJ. W. Dickinson for appellant.\nThe plaintiff alleges the loss of the notes, but that they were still due and unpaid; this was denied by defendant. Upon this state of facts the onus was'on defendant to show payment. Where loss is alleged and non-payment affirmed, the defendant when she pleads payment, must so show, or fail. 29 Ark., 74; 21 W. Va., 183; 55 Vt., 352.\nJames Murphy for appellee.\nPlaintiff alleged that the note was lost\u2014this was denied\u2014 and thus it became a material issue and the onus was on plaintiff to prove the loss of the note, or produce it. 7 Ark., 118."
  },
  "file_name": "0546-01",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 571
}