{ "id": 1507863, "name": "Sunnyside Company v. Read", "name_abbreviation": "Sunnyside Co. v. Read", "decision_date": "1902-11-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "59", "last_page": "61", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ark. 59" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "56 Ark. 619", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "292" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "49 Ark. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309539 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ark. 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721957 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/51/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ark. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1309062 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/49/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark., 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1913357 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/52/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "60 Ark. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1903691 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/60/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ark. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881160 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/30/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 Ark. 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727027 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/26/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 501", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "64 Ark. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 Ark. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1334117 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/68/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 Pa. St. 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1948401 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/pa/122/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Ark. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1322242 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/55/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "54 Ark. 367", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "56 Ark. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1326155 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/56/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ark. 172", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 So. Rep. 935", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "12 So. Rep. 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "70 Miss. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1781437 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/70/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 So. Rep. 831", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "73 Miss. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1739297 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/miss/73/0452-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 366, "char_count": 5521, "ocr_confidence": 0.486, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.05637432915973093 }, "sha256": "7ec759c293fdc92d5429729ff62983467236945018c9722b0e52a6275cffb58a", "simhash": "1:8d70fc89b016197b", "word_count": 960 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:48.196038+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sunnyside Company v. Read." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hoghes, J.\nThis action was brought under section 4792 of Sandels & Hill\u2019s Digest by the appellee against the appellant. That section provides that: \u201cIf any one shall wilfully interfere with,'entice away, knowingly emplojr, or induce a laborer or renter, who contracted as herein provided, to leave his employ or the place rented before the expiration of his contract, he shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, shall be fined in any sum not less than twenty nor more than two hundred dollars, and, in addition to such fine, shall be liable to the employer in double the amount of damages such employer or landlord may suffer by such abandonment.\u201d\nThe complaint in this case alleges that the plaintiff had entered into contract for the year 1898 with certain parties named to rent land from her, and perform labo*r, and make a crop of cotton and corn on the Rosmere plantation, in Chicot county, Arkansas; that said parties cultivated their crops to maturity; that the defendant, the Sunnyside Company, is a foreign corporation. doing a large planting business in said county of Chicot on the Sunnyside plantation; that shortly after said cotton crop was matured and the said renters had begun to pick the same, the defendant, the Sunnyside Company, by its authorized agents and emplees, acting within the scope of their employment, did wilfully interfere with and induce and knowingly employ each of said laborers and renters to leave plaintiff\u2019s employment and the place rented before the expiration of said contract, and thereby caused plaintiff to lose in rents and accounts the sum of $535.56, and to the damage' of plaintiff $535.56j for which she prayed judgment. Judgment for plaintiff.\nThere was a demurrer to the complaint, and also a motion to make it more specific, which were overruled, and the defendant answered, denying the material allegations in the complaint.\nThe complaint, as amended, seems to be sufficient; but we do not discuss the various questions raised by the demurrer and the motion to make more specific, as in \u00f3ur judgment the evidence does not sustain the verdict of the jury in the case.\nThere is no direct or positive evidence that the Sunnyside Company, the defendant, ever wilfully induced, interfered with, or knowingly employed each of said laborers* or renters to leave plaintiff\u2019s employment and the places rented before the expiration of their contracts. The defendant denied this in the answer, and the agents in charge of and managing the Sunnyside plantation and the Hyna place of the defendant all deny the charge unequivocally in their testimony in the case, and there is no evidence, either positive or circumstantial, to sustain it.\nIt is true that there is evidence that these laborers or tenants left the Eosmere plantation of plaintiff in November, 1898, and went on the Sunnyside and Hyna places of the defendant to work for parties who had rented land from defendant, but there is no proof that the agents of the defendant induced them to do so or employed them. The proof shows that the defendant had no control of those for whom they worked, and that the parties for whom they worked were tenants of the defendant. Tyler, one of the parties who left Mrs. Bead\u2019s place, is shown to have rented land on the Sunnyside plantation in the-beginning. It appears.to the court that there is a failure of the evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury in this case, for which the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hoghes, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Baldy Vinson, for appellant.", "J. F: Robinson, B. F. Merritt and P. O. Dooley for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sunnyside Company v. Read.\nOpinion delivered November 15, 1902.\nEnticing Away Laborers \u2014 Evidence.\u2014Under Sand. &' H. Dig., \u00a7 4792, providing that if one shall entice away or knowingly employ, etc., a laborer or renter to leave his employ or the place rented before the expiration of his contract, he shall be guilty of. a misdemeanor and liable in double damages to the employer or'landlord, a judgment for double damages in favor of a landlord is not supported by evidence that persons under contract to rent plaintiffs land left it to work for tenants of defendant, but that defendant had no control over its tenants, and did not induce plaintiff\u2019s tenants to leave plaintiff.\nAppeal from Chicot Circuit Court.\nZaci-iariah T. Wood, Judge.\nReversed.\nBaldy Vinson, for appellant.\nThe complaint was defective. 73 Miss. 452; Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7 4792. ' Must have a reasonable construction. 22 So. Rep. 831; 70 Miss. 245; 12 So. Rep. 249; 13 So. Rep. 935. This is a penal action. 19 Ark. 172; 54 Ark: 364. The venue must be alleged and proved. Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7 5685; 56 Ark. 539. Damages in this case are, in effect, a fine and punishment. 19 Ark. 172; 54 Ark. 367. The act of March 22, 1887, is void. 52 Ark. 291; 55 Ark. 389; 122 Pa. St. 627.\nJ. F: Robinson, B. F. Merritt and P. O. Dooley for appellee.\nThe right of recovery is a civil action. 68 Ark. 433. The amendment of the complaint was proper. Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7\u00a7 5769, 5772; 64 Ark. 257; 64 Ark. 501. One claiming to have been misled must show in what manner. 26 Ark. 405. If the amendment was material, it was cured by the allegations of the answer. 30 Ark. 249; 60 Ark. 70. The amendment was immaterial. Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7\u00a7 5764-5. The objection to the complaint could have been reached by a motion to make more specific. 52 Ark., 378; 49 Ark. 277. The objection to misjoinder of'Causes of action was waived. Sand. & H. Dig. \u00a7\u00a7 5703, 5706; 51 Ark. 235; 49 Ark. 306; 54 Ark. 561, 292. The finding of interest was warranted by the evidence. 56 Ark. 619." }, "file_name": "0059-01", "first_page_order": 77, "last_page_order": 79 }