The first document in this case has no connection with it, and was included with it by mistake. It is a promissory note made on July 5th, 1820 by Alexander McNair, the governor of Missouri, at St. Louis, to William O'Hara, a Missouri land speculator, for the amount of $83.74. There is also a protest from Joseph V. Garnier, a notary public, who requested payment from the Bank of Missouri and was refused, because the bank claimed that the maker of the note had no funds at the bank. Since the case deals with O'Hara's estate perhaps the note and the protest were mislaid and put into the file inadvertently.

On July 29, 1820, W.T. Townsend executed a promissory note at St. Louis to William O'Hara, for $1,600, to be paid by January 1821, with a late penalty of 9% interest per annum. O'Hara then endorsed the note over to Frederick Dent. Townsend refused to pay Dent, and so Dent sued in St. Louis. St. Louis attorneys Robert Wash and Francis Carr represented Dent. Ewel Baker, Deputy Clerk for Archibald Gamble, issued the capias, which was delivered by Deputy Sheriff John K. Walker. Townsend did not appear in court and thus Dent received a default judgment in 1821.

In 1826, Dent sued Chester Ashley in the Superior Court of the Arkansas Territory. Ashley was the administrator of O'Hara's estate in Arkansas. Richard Searcy acted as counsel for Dent. Dent presented a record of the Missouri proceedings, certified by Judge Alexander Stuart. When Dent filed the lawsuit he was required to make bond. He did so on August 15, 1826. Robert Crittenden acted as surety. ThomasW. Newton, Deputy Clerk for Clerk David E. McKinney, issued the summons to Ashley, and Sheriff Samuel Rutherford served the summons on Ashley in Big Rock Township on August 31.

Ambrose Sevier represented Ashley and filed a plea alleging that Dent had already sued Ashley for the same reason in Pulaski County Superior Court, and asked the court to dismiss the suit. In October of 1827, the court allowed Ashley to file an additional plea, and he argued that 1) O'Hara did not promise to pay Dent; 2) that the five-year statute of limitations had run, barring Dent's suit; 3) that Dent had never attempted to attempt to collect from Townsend; 4) that O'Hara had never received notice from Dent that the note was unpaid; 5) that Ashley had already paid out everything in O'Hara's estate; and 6) that O'Hara's estate was insolvent. The case was continued until the April term. In April, Dent demurred to five of the six arguments.

On April 26 the court announced two opinions, both reported in Hempstead. Since O'Hara had owned property in Missouri and Arkansas Territory, there were two different probates of his estate, under the jurisdiction of two different courts, with two different personal representatives. There was no kind of "privity," or legal agreement or relationship between the administrators in the two locations. Thus a Dent could not present the record of a lawsuit against the Missouri administrator and expect to enforce it in Arkansas Territory administrator. Dent would have to sue again in Arkansas. In its second opinion, the court decided the issue of the promissory note itself. Townsend was the "maker" of the note and O'Hara the "assignor." Even though O'Hara had promised to pay no matter what, still the law was settled that the assignee, Dent, was bound to ask for payment from Townsend before resorting to O'Hara. Dent did not allege due diligence in his pleadings. He should have alleged and proved that he had sued Townsend and used all legal means to enforce the payment of the note. Nor did Dent allege that the assignment to him was made for valuable consideration–in other words, he did not allege that he had given O'Hara anything in exchange for the note. Thus, the court held that Ashley won, and thus could recover his costs from Dent. The fault here seems to be technical difficulties with the pleadings. Dent did sue Townsend, who defaulted, apparently leaving no property to be seized. The record of the lawsuit was filed with the Superior Court, and it is clear that Dent showed due diligence. However, Dent's Arkansas pleadings did not contain the requisite information.

Previous Case | Next Page