{
  "id": 1501083,
  "name": "Miller v. Nuckolls",
  "name_abbreviation": "Miller v. Nuckolls",
  "decision_date": "1905-09-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "485",
  "last_page": "486",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "76 Ark. 485"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "15 Wash. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 Va. 28",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Va.",
      "case_ids": [
        1868863
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/va/94/0028-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Cal. 277",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Cal.",
      "case_ids": [
        2215544
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/cal/6/0277-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Dana, 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Dana",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ark. 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727974
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/11/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 Ohio St. 228",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "case_ids": [
        510686
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ohio-st/6/0228-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 219,
    "char_count": 2406,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.904629254057333e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9338409304944033
    },
    "sha256": "e055528547f5df2b80954be8bdb2be1f91b898bdf5fe31146be30dbc56f26445",
    "simhash": "1:ea652b3010e97233",
    "word_count": 408
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:37:18.445737+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Miller v. Nuckolls."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, J.\nThis is an action for slander. The plaintiff (appellee) recovered judgment below, and the defendant (appellant) took an appeal to this court. Since the appeal was perfected, the appellant died, and his attorney, as amicus curiae, presents this motion to abate the cause. The appellee responds to the motion, and asks that the cause be revived against the administrator or executor of the deceased.\nAt common law actions of this kind abated with the death of either party, the wrongdoer or the party injured. \u201cActio personalis moritur cum persona\u201d was a maxim of the common law. The statute of this State providing for revival of causes of action for wrongs done to the person expressly excepts from its operation actions for slander or libel, thus leaving the common-law rule in force as to those actions. Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6286. It does not follow, however, that after a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff an action for slander or libel abates. On the contrary, we hold that the cause of action becomes merged in the judgment, and, unless the same be set aside or reversed, there can be no abatement. This view is sustained by authority. Newellon Slander and Libel, p. 375; 21 Enc. of Pl. & Pr. p. 351; Dial v. Holter, 6 Ohio St. 228; Ackers v. Ackers, 16 Lea (Tenn.), 7.\nAn appeal and supersedeas do not have the effect of vacating a judgment, but only stay proceedings, thereunder. Fowler v. Scott, 11 Ark. 675; 2 Cyc. p. 971; 20 Enc. Pl. & Pr., p. 1240; Runyon v. Bennett, 4 Dana, 599; Low v. Adams, 6 Cal. 277; Martin v. South Salem Land Co., 94 Va. 28; Fawcett v. Superior Court, 15 Wash. 345.\nThe motion to abate is therefore overruled.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gustave Jones, for appellant.",
      "W. A. Oldfield and Wright & Matheny, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Miller v. Nuckolls.\nOpinion delivered September 30, 1905.\n'I. Slander \u2014 revival oe judgment. \u2014 While an action of slander abates with the death of either the plaintiff or the defendant, yet, if final judgment has been entered in plaintiff\u2019s favor, and defendant appeals, and thereafter dies, the action does not abate, as the action has become merged in the judgment. (Page 486.)\n2. Appeal \u2014 effect of. supersedeas. \u2014 An appeal with supersedeas does not .have the effect of vacating a judgment, but only of staying proceedings thereunder. (Page 486.)\nAppeal from Independence Circuit Court.\nFrederick D. Fulkerson, Judge.\nMotion to abate cause overruled.\nGustave Jones, for appellant.\nW. A. Oldfield and Wright & Matheny, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0485-01",
  "first_page_order": 507,
  "last_page_order": 508
}