{
  "id": 1324582,
  "name": "Tucker v. Byers",
  "name_abbreviation": "Tucker v. Byers",
  "decision_date": "1893-01-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "215",
  "last_page": "216",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 Ark. 215"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 159,
    "char_count": 1652,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.545,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.666178283130817e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6952026932844347
    },
    "sha256": "81c10e081ae8527f60e55dd6b237137a7cc2dbee634092d31dc5122c52a4d51c",
    "simhash": "1:b6949705483ee34d",
    "word_count": 288
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:57:53.176982+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Tucker v. Byers."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cockriee, C. J.\nViewing the facts in the lig'ht of the appellant\u2019s abstract, the statements of which the appellee has not seen fit to controvert, the case stands thus :\nThe appellee purchased the appellant\u2019s land at execution sale, and, after obtaining a deed in pursuance of the sale, brought suit against the appellant before a justice of the peace, and sued out an attachment, under the landlord\u2019s lien act, to recover\" the rent of the land. Upon that state of facts, no cause of the action ex contractu arises. To justify the recovery of rents, the relation of landlord and tenant must exist, and that relation depends upon contract, express or implied. But there is no implied promise on the part of a judgment debtor, whose land has been sold under execution, to hold as a tenant of the purchaser.\nThe judgment of the circuit court in favor of the appellee will be reversed, and the caused remanded. It is so ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cockriee, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William N. May, for appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tucker v. Byers.\nOpinion delivered January 28, 1893.\nLandlord, and tenant\u2014 When relation does not exist.\nThere is no implied promise on the part of a judgment debtor, whose land has been sold under execution, to hold as tenant of the purchaser.\nAppeal from Yell Circuit Court, Dardanelle District.\nJordan B. Cravens, Judge.\nWilliam N. May, for appellants.\n1. A landlord is one who rents land to another, and puts him in possession. The mere fact that Byers purchased the land at sheriff\u2019s sale did not establish the relation of landlord and tenant. His remedy was eject- . ment, if any. 2 Bouv. Daw Die.; 1 Parsons, Cont. pp. 499-500 ; 1 Wash. Real Prop. pp. 565-6-7, etc.\n2. The sheriff\u2019s sale was void. Mansf. Dig. sec. 2994."
  },
  "file_name": "0215-01",
  "first_page_order": 235,
  "last_page_order": 236
}