{
  "id": 1907399,
  "name": "Huffman v. Thompson",
  "name_abbreviation": "Huffman v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1897-06-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "196",
  "last_page": "197",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ark. 196"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Wis. 387",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wis.",
      "case_ids": [
        8708349
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wis/32/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ark. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1617,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06959286043317583
    },
    "sha256": "4c464c9827e079df96e16e9805bffddfd62f921b29e7682d9f2b6327c6119de3",
    "simhash": "1:8ad17ad126a9a9be",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:52.333368+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Huffman v. Thompson."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bunn, C. J.\nThe court erred in holding the language of the affidavit to the schedule insufficient in that it failed to state that the debt sued for was by contract. We think it could mean nothing else. For this error the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings to ascertain from the facts whether or not the defendant is entitled to bis exemptions.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bunn, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "B. B. Wilson, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Huffman v. Thompson.\nOpinion delivered June 19, 1897.\nExemption\u2014 Sufficiency of Schedule.\u2014A schedule of exemption of personal property which alleges that the debt sued upon is a \u201cdebt not due upon contract\u201d sufficiently alleges that such debt is by contract.\nAppeal from Logan Circuit Court.\nJephtha H. Evans, Judge.\nThompson sued Huffman upon a note not due, and procured an attachment to be issued, which was levied upon property of defendant. Judgment was taken by default. Subsequently defendant filed a schedule claiming the property exempt, alleging \u201cthat the attachment is for debt not due upon contract.\u201d The circuit court disallowed the exemption sought, upon the ground that the schedule failed to show that the attachment was for a debt by contract. Defendant has appealed.\nB. B. Wilson, for appellant.\nThe debt was upon contract, and was not disputed. The affidavit is regular, and shows everything required by the statute. Its language may not be grammatical, but the courts will supply punctuation marks to' ascertain the true meaning. 11 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 522, note 5. Exemption laws are construed liberally. 38 Ark. 113; 31 id. 652; 61 111. 449; 32 Wis. 387. It clearly appears that the debt was one due by contract."
  },
  "file_name": "0196-01",
  "first_page_order": 214,
  "last_page_order": 215
}