Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Marvin v. Brooks
Citations: 225 Ark. 204; 281 S.W.2d 926; 1955 Ark. LEXIS 567Docket: 5-701
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; June 20, 1955; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Marvin sold a grocery stock to Brooks, who managed one of Marvin's stores. The transaction involved an inventory value of over $11,000, with deductions for accounts payable and a bank overdraft, resulting in Marvin's equity of $7,664.08, secured by an unsecured note from Brooks. Brooks was to receive $75 weekly for his and his wife's services, pay $135 monthly for fixtures, and $60 for building rent. After operating the store for over a year and settling most debts, Marvin filed for $8,009.08 against Brooks and attached the grocery stock without notice. The Circuit Court ruled that Marvin failed to establish grounds for attachment, ordered the attachment proceeds returned to Brooks, and directed verdicts in favor of Marvin for the debt owed while denying Brooks' wrongful attachment damages claim. Marvin appealed the attachment quashing, asserting his rights under vendor attachment statutes and general attachment law. The court determined it was appropriate to decide on attachment grounds, supported by substantial evidence. It found that Marvin could not attach the groceries, as they had been replenished and sold over 15 months, and he failed to prove any specific items were still in his possession. The court upheld its decision against Marvin's claims for attachment under both the vendor lien and general statutes. Marvin's affidavit alleged that Brooks was either about to remove property without leaving sufficient assets to satisfy a claim, had disposed of property with fraudulent intent to hinder creditors, or was planning to do so. However, Marvin's testimony did not support these claims; in fact, Brooks' attorney used Marvin's testimony to argue that grounds for attachment were lacking. Consequently, the court correctly ruled that the attachment was wrongfully issued. Regarding Brooks' claim for damages due to wrongful attachment, the court noted that such cases typically require evidence of damages, which was absent in this instance, leading to a directed verdict for Marvin on this issue. On Brooks' cross-appeal concerning a judgment of $7,934.08 owed to Marvin, the court identified a factual dispute regarding the payment terms of the original debt of $7,664.08. Brooks contended that payment was contingent upon settling other accounts, and evidence supported this claim. Although Marvin claimed the debt was evidenced by a note that specified payment terms, Brooks asserted that those terms were added post-signature without his consent. The maturity of the debt and a possible agreement to cancel the debt if Brooks could not pay presented factual issues that warranted jury consideration. The judgment was affirmed on all issues except for the debt owed to Marvin, which was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. The court ordered that funds held by the Sheriff be retained until the lower court resolves the matter, noting that Brooks had assigned some funds but Marvin had superseded the entire judgment. Costs for the appeal are to be borne by the appellant.