{ "id": 1521486, "name": "Bigham v. Dover", "name_abbreviation": "Bigham v. Dover", "decision_date": "1908-05-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "323", "last_page": "324", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "86 Ark. 323" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "26 Wash. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wash.", "case_ids": [ 5168659 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/wash/26/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Kan. 512", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Kan.", "case_ids": [ 1159831 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/kan/36/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Cal. 372", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "case_ids": [ 2246130 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal/38/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 Ark. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1527202 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/83/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1888775 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/47/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "35 Ark. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1873826 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/35/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Ark. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1885768 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/27/0020-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 Ark. 496", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727218 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/24/0496-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 273, "char_count": 3412, "ocr_confidence": 0.681, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.087745454324087e-08, "percentile": 0.32031133861472233 }, "sha256": "17ab661953391741e2fa56f75886c4bd378a1d4b1ac0e08d929e38d8ffb805a1", "simhash": "1:d6608fc758d1cc44", "word_count": 601 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:59.018039+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hiel, C. J., and McCurroch, J., dissent." ], "parties": [ "Bigham v. Dover." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wood, J.,\n(after stating the facts.) Our statute provides that: \u201cAn execution may issue upon any final judgment, order or decree of a court of record for a liquidated sum of money, and for interest artd costs, or for costs alone.\u201d Section 3203, Kirby\u2019s Digest.\nThere is no law or rule of practice that authorizes a single execution for the amounts of two separate and distinct judgments. 17 Cyc. 932. A joint execution upon two separate judgments is not voidable merely, but void. Merchie v. Gaines, 5 B. Monroe (Ky.), 126; Doe v. Rue, 4 Blackf. Ind. 263. Such an execution is defective, not in form merely, but also in substance, and is therefore not susceptible of amendment. See Blanks v. Rector, 24 Ark. 496; Hightower v. Handlin, 27 Ark. 20; Hall v. Doyle, 35 Ark. 445; Jett v. Shinn, 47 Ark. 373; and Downs v. Dennis, 83 Ark. 71, as to executions that may or may not be amended. An execution based on a valid judgment, but which contains an excessive amount only, may, according to some decisions, be amended. Hunt v. Loucks, 38 Cal. 372; Bogle v. Bloom, 36 Kan. 512; Otis v. Nash, 26 Wash. 39. But this is not that case. The ruling of the court eliminating the amount of one of the judgments did not cure the error of taking and selling appellant\u2019s property under process that was absolutely void. Such error was prejudicial, and could not be cured by amendment. Appellee acquired no title by his purchase at a sale under the void execution.\nThe judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for new trial.\nHiel, C. J., and McCurroch, J., dissent.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wood, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Shaver & Pipkin, for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Bigham v. Dover.\nOpinion delivered May 25, 1908.\nExecution \u2014 two judgments \u2014 amendment.\u2014A joint execution upon two separate judgments' is void, and is not amendable by elimination of one of the judgments.\nAppeal from Polk 'Circuit Court; James S. St^l, Judge;\nreversed.\nstatement by the court.\nAppellee bought a saddle for $12 at a sale under the following execution:\n\u201cCounty of Pope, Township of White.\n\u201cThe State of Arkansas to any constable of Polk County: You are hereby commanded that of the goods and chattels of E. T. Bigham you cause to be made the sum of nine dollars ($9) which W. W. Cranford late before me, a justice of the peace for said county, recovered against him for his costs in a replevin suit, and also costs in a suit wherein S. S. Crockett was plaintiff and W. W. Cranford and E. T. Bigham were defendants, and that you have said sum of money within thirty days to render to said W. W. Cranford for his costs aforesaid.\n\u201cWitness my hand as such justice this the 16th day of September, 1906.\n\u201cB. E. McMillan, J. P\nThe sale was regular.\nThe execution was based on two judgments against appellant in the justice court, aggregating the sum of $9 for costs. The judgments were in favor of different parties. The judgments were valid. Appellants, claiming that 'the execution was void, and that the sale thereunder was void, brought replevin \u25a0against appellee for the saddle. The cause was tried by the court sitting as a jury, and the above appear as the undisputed facts.\nThe court found that the sale was valid, and that the title to the saddle was in appellee, but that appellant was entitled to the difference between $12, the amount for which the saddle was sold, and $5.50, the amount of the Cranford judgment, and rendered judgment accordingly, The appellant duly prosecutes this appeal.\nShaver & Pipkin, for appellant." }, "file_name": "0323-01", "first_page_order": 345, "last_page_order": 346 }