{
  "id": 1903695,
  "name": "Johnson v. St. Louis Butchers' Supply Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. St. Louis Butchers' Supply Co.",
  "decision_date": "1895-04-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "387",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ark. 387"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "429"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ark. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893354
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/44/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ark. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1897134
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/40/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/38/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ark. 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1326084
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/56/0450-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 4874,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.55938719581811e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8152044771722212
    },
    "sha256": "47a153c85cb8b66a4b7cda0ffbacad6cb30c62f280e4c1cbdc1701dcd977a97a",
    "simhash": "1:9ecb3600d91d0418",
    "word_count": 833
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:53.045035+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Johnson v. St. Louis Butchers\u2019 Supply Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood J.\n(after stating the facts.) The only question here is the ruling of the court upon the demurrer. According to Ames Iron Works v. Rea, 56 Ark. 450, the \u2022matters of defense set up in the second paragraph of the answer were proper in this proceeding. Since no one could be held for false representations who honestly believed them true when made, the answer would have been in better form for a counter-claim growing out of the alleged false representations had it alleged that the plaintiff made them knowing they were false and intending to defraud, or that, not knowing the facts, he asserted them as true. Hanger v. Evins, 38 Ark. 334. But, on the question of intent, Mr. Bigelow declares what we consider the law as follows : \u201cIn cases of contest between the parties to the suit, especially in contracts of sale, the intention to mislead obviously follows from the defendant\u2019s knowledge of the falsity of his representations ; that makes a case of fraud, and no further evidence of intention is required.\u201d The plaintiff company was the manufacturer of the refrigerator, and must have known the truth or falsity of the representations set forth in defendant\u2019s answer as to its meat-preserving qualities, or, if it did not know anything about them, it should not have asserted them as true.\nTaking the second paragraph of the answer as true, it reveals a good ground for defense by way of counterclaim. The cause is reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer to the second paragraph of appellant\u2019s answer.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. M. Gunier for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Johnson v. St. Louis Butchers\u2019 Supply Company.\nOpinion delivered April 6, 1895.\nSale \u2014 False representations \u2014 Counter-claim.\nIn an action of replevin by a vendor of an article to recover its possession under a mortgage to secure the price, it is a good defense, by way of counter-claim, that the vendor made representations concerning the article which he knew to be false, and which induced the vendee to buy, and that the amounts already paid by the latter, together with a sum tendered, were equal to the value of the article.\nAppeal from Washington Circuit Court.\nBdward S. McDaniel, Judge.\nSTATEMENT BY THE COURT.\nThis was a suit in replevin to recover from the defendant (appellant) a certain fancy refrigerator, which plaintiff (appellee) had sold to the defendant, and upon which defendant had executed a mortgage back to plaintiff to secure it for the purchase money. Plaintiff claimed to be entitled to the possession of the refrigerator under the mortgage. The defendant answered, admitting the contract of sale evidenced by the notes for the purchase money and the mortgage to secure them, but denied plaintiff\u2019s right to possession, and set up as grounds of defense, in the second paragraph of his answer, substantially that he was a butcher, and engaged in the sale of fresh meats, and that plaintiff was a manufacturer of refrigerators, and represented to him that the refrigerator he purchased was made of first class material, well and skillfully constructed, and with a supply of a certain quantity of ice \u2014 100 or 150 lbs.\u2014 would keep meats perfectly sound for fourteen days during the hottest weather ; that defendant, relying solely upon such representations, bought of plaintiff said refrigerator, paying therefor the sum of forty dollars in cash and executing his note for balance, together with the mortgage to secure same; that he had paid out as expenses in setting up said refrigerator the sum of nineteen and 80-100 dollars, and that with the forty he had paid in cash, and the sum of fifteen which he tendered in court was largely in excess of the value of said refrigerator ; that the amount he had paid in cash and the amount he tendered were equal to the value of same. He alleged that all of said representations, with regard to skillful construction of the refrigerator, preservation of meats by using certain quantities of ice, etc., were false. Defendant stated that plaintiff was a non-resident, and had no property in the State to indemnify him for his losses and damages on account of said false and fraudulent representations, and prayed that the value of said refrigerator be investigated, and for all proper relief.\nThe court sustained a demurrer to this paragraph of the answer, and, upon the issue made by the first paragraph, the cause was submitted to the court sitting as a jury. The issues were found for plaintiff, and judgment rendered for eighty dollars, from which the appeal was taken.\nT. M. Gunier for appellant.\nThe mortgagor had a right to set up in his answer by way of defense any claim growing out of the transaction. 40 Ark. 75. He may set up any ground of defense, legal or equitable. Dig. sec. 5722, par. 4. A justice of the peace even may apply equitable doctrines. 44 Ark. 377 ; 55 id. 101. A counter-claim may be set up by way of defense in an action of replevin. 56 Ark. 426, 429, etc."
  },
  "file_name": "0387-01",
  "first_page_order": 403,
  "last_page_order": 405
}