Dill v. Wallis Abstract


Home \| About \| How to Search \| Cases \| History \| Names \| Places \| Glossary \| Subject Index \| Sources \| Links \| Law School

John Dill v. Perly Wallis
Abstract

On March 11, 1811, Anthony Haden, attorney for John Dill, filed a lawsuit with the Court of Common Pleas, alleging that Perly Wallis had failed to make payment to Dill on a note for $50.40. Wallis had originally made the note in June of 1807. Judge Francois Vaugine ordered the clerk, Patrick Cassidy, to issue a summons for Perly Wallis. Sheriff Daniel Mooney executed the summons on Wallis on March 13, 1811, commanding his presence at the April term of court. On April 9, Richmond Peeler posted bond to the effect that he owed Wallis $30, but if he prosecuted Dill's suit against Wallis and won, the obligation of the bond would be void. Joseph Stillwell was the surety, and Hezekiah Kirkpatrick witnessed the making of the bond. On April 11, Wallis filed his plea attacking the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas, and arguing that the statute required suits on amounts less than fifty dollars to be filed in justice of the peace court. Wallis also claimed that he had paid Dill $25 already by means of a note on Isaac House. The note had been awarded to Dill in a court judgment in Natchez by Squire Brooks. On the motion of John Miller, Wallis's attorney, the court issued a writ to get a deposition from Isaac House, who was believed to be in Natchez.

A year later, Perly Wallis swore an affidavit before the court that Isaac House could not be found in Natchez, but was believed to live in the District of Concordia, and had been traveling in the "attucapas country" when the writ had been issued. He claimed that House was a material witness and thought he could produce him by the next term of court. The court granted a continuance till the next term. In August, Wallis was back in court, saying once again that he could produce Isaac House by the next term. This time, the court granted a continuance until the last day of the August term. On that day, a copy of the original 1807 note was filed with the court. However, the court dismissed the suit, persuaded by Wallis that the small amount of money at issue rendered the suit outside of the jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas.

Previous Case | Next Page