{
  "id": 1318843,
  "name": "Smith v. Taylor",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1911-01-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "424",
  "last_page": "424",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "97 Ark. 424"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "55 Ark. 547",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1322351
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/55/0547-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ark. 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8722968
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/42/0210-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1777,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.659,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05009056512561157
    },
    "sha256": "e68aa47c48c11b203e85a2905ae5d3d9a3c627d53d82df27cbc82fb9a77f9d3d",
    "simhash": "1:de97b9e94127b910",
    "word_count": 281
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:16.573108+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Smith v. Taylor."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McCulloch, C. J.\nThis is an action instituted by appellee against appellant in the circuit court of Sharp County, Northern-District, to recover the sum of one hundred dollars alleged to be-dire as damages resulting from -the alleged breach by appellant of his contract with appellee employing the latter as his agent to sell a certain tract of land. Appellee recovered judgment below for $25.\nThe Constitution (art. 7, \u00a7 40) provides that justices of\" the peace shall have original jurisdiction \u201cexclusive of the circuit court in all matters of contract where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of one hundred dollars, excluding interest.\u201d It 'has been held by this court that the term \u201cmatters-of contract\u201d embraces an action for unliquidated damages when, the action is founded upon a contract. Stanley v. Bracht, 42 Ark. 210; Koch v. Kimberling, 55 Ark. 547.\nIt follows that the circuit court had no jurisdiction of the cause of action set forth in the complaint. Therefore the.judgment is reversed, and the cause dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McCulloch, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Dwvid L. King, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Smith v. Taylor.\nOpinion delivered January 30, 1911.\nJustice oe the peace \u2014 jurisdiction in matters oe contract \u2014 UnderConst. 1874, art 7, \u00a7 40, providing that justices of the peace shall have original jurisdiction \u201cexclusive of the circuit court in all matters of contract where the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum-of one hundred dollars, excluding interest,\u201d justices of the peace have exclusive original jurisdiction of all actions for unliquidated', damages founded upon contracts.\nAppeal from Sharp Circuit Court, Northern District; John-W. Meeks, Judge;\nreversed.\nDwvid L. King, for appellant.\nThe circuit court had no original jurisdiction of this cause,, and should have sustained the demurrer to the complaint."
  },
  "file_name": "0424-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 448
}