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

 

Sylvanus Phillips v. Richmond Peeler
Abstract

This case is a second try by Sylvanus Phillips to recover for alleged injuries done to him by Richmond Peeler. For an account of the first attempt and a related suit by Peeler against Phillips, see the 1810 case of Phillips v. Peeler.

In September 1812 Sylvanus Phillips, represented by Perly Wallis, sued Richmond Peeler for trespass by force and arms for assault and battery and false imprisonment. Phillips claimed that in November 1810 Peeler had caused Richard Melton, the deputy sheriff, to arrest Phillips at "the settlement of St. Francis" and take him to the Arkansas Post, 75 miles distant, where he was brought before Judges Francois Vaugine and Joseph Stillwell, and held in jail for weeks. Phillips alleged that his slave, Sam, whom he had purchased at public auction, had been taken from his possession by Sheriff Daniel Mooney. Phillips claimed that the sheriff had held Sam for 13 months. On Oct. 9, Judge Vaugine ordered Clerk Patrick Cassidy to issue a summons for Richmond Peeler. Sheriff Mooney served the summons to Peeler at his residence on Nov. 11.

On Dec. 1, Anthony Haden, representing Richmond Peeler, filed a plea claiming that the declaration was not sufficient in law to enable Phillips to sue, for three reasons: first, that the October summons was invalid because Judge Vaugine was not the judge of the district at time; second, because the summons was not under the seal of a judge or a clerk; and third, because the summons was never actually served on Peeler, but merely left at his house.

The August 1812 term had been the last ordinary term of the Court of Common Pleas. Afterwards it was abolished, as Arkansas became the County of Arkansas in the new Territory of Missouri. A court of record was re-established. Judge George C. Bullitt presided. The new General Court held it first term in Sept. 1814.

On Sept. 9, 1814, both Phillips v. Peeler suits were called. One was discontinued by Phillips; the other was nonsuited by Peeler. This effectively ended both suits. Phillips had to reimburse Peeler for his costs in both suits. This is the last mention of these lawsuits in the record book.

Previous Case | Next Page

 

 

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