In this case, the Superior Court directly addresses its own jurisdictional limits and defines the boundaries of pleading in the Arkansas Territorial Court. It seems that this case, filed by William Blakeley, was initially misfiled as a bill in chancery. As the court notes in its opinion, there was an adequate remedy at law and thus, chancery court was the inappropriate forum in which to try to the case.

The background of the case is fairly simple. Moses Graham, an early settler of Clark County and its former sheriff, died intestate, or without a will, on April 2, 1821. William Blakeley was appointed administrator of Graham's estate. On April 14, Blakeley proceeded to sell the personal estate of Graham, taking notes and bonds from the purchasers of various articles of the estate amounting to $697.15 1/4. Blakeley filed a bill of sale. Sold were such items as cattle, hogs, two horses, a plow, farming tools such as hoes, axes and saws, and household items such as "bake ovens," a "French pot," a churn, a spinning wheel, and four wine bottles. Graham's old military coat, a digest of Missouri laws, and an edition of the "Spirit of Masonry," among many other items, were all sold. Purchasers at the sale were Blakeley himself, Henry L. Biscoe, David Trammel, Thomas Montgomery, Stephen P. Wilson, Jacob Wells, Robert Welsh, James Stephenson, Micajah McDaniel, Jesse Scarborough, Sally Graham, John Richards, Silas McDaniel, James Cummins, John Isom, Esther Williams, John Glover, Levi Martin, Oliver Logan, Richard Poston, James J. Ross, Phillip Smith, and John Carruthers. The most expensive item was one bay mare, selling for $96.

Blakeley decided to hire Henry L. Biscoe to act as his agent in further administering the estate. Biscoe allegedly promised to perform all the duties required by Blakeley, including settling the estate as required by law and paying over the balance of the assets after the settlement to Blakeley. In return, Biscoe would retain 6% of the amount of the estate. Biscoe agreed to keep a "just and true account" of all the money he received, stating when it was received and how it was appropriated, and to show the account to Blakeley whenever he requested to see it. So Blakeley delivered the notes he had previously taken from the sales of the estate to Biscoe. Apparently, Biscoe did in fact receive the notes and collect the $697.15 1/4 owed to the estate. However, Blakeley alleged that Biscoe failed to settle with him and refused to account for and pay over the money or show an account of all the money received, of whom it was received, to whom paid, and for what purpose. On September 8, 1828, represented by Thomas Hubbard, Blakeley filed bill in chancery to the Superior Court, asking the court to compel Biscoe to settle for the account of his agency, pay over the remaining money and for general relief.

On November 12, David McKinney, the clerk of the court, issued subpoenas were issued at some point – our collection lacks a record of when these actions took place. However, it is clear that on October 28, 1828, Blakeley, by his attorney, moved and the court ordered that a new subpoena in chancery be issued in the suit, directed to the coroner of Phillips county and returnable to the next term of the court. The suit be continued until that term. On April 18, 1829, another alias subpoena was awarded, directed to the coroner of Phillips county, and the case was again continued. However, later that summer, Biscoe, by his attorney, moved the court to strike the suit from the docket for want of Jurisdiction; apparently the last writ issued in the case was an original writ after jurisdiction had been taken from the court. The motion was argued by both counsel and the court took the motion under advisement for three days. On July 27, 1829 the court overruled the motion made to dismiss the suit and the case proceeded. The next day, the defendant filed a demurrer to the bill. On August 2, the parties and their attorneys came to the court and Blakeley joined the demurrer. The case was continued until the next term of the court. Eventually, on January 25, 1831, the attorneys submitted their arguments for and against the demurrer and the court took the matter under advisement.

On January 26, 1831, a decade after the administration of the estate was originally awarded to the plaintiff, Judge Benjamin Johnson issued the Superior Court's opinion, ruling that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The rest of the Court consisted of judges Thomas P. Eskridge, Edward Cross and James Woodson Bates. The main issue in the case, as perceived by the court, was whether a Court of Chancery could entertain Jurisdiction where there was a plain and adequate remedy at law. Ultimately, Judge Johnson wrote that it could not. According to numerous authorities, it was clear that if there was a plain and adequate remedy at law, chancery was an inappropriate court.

Here, the court said, the bill was simply a contract between the plaintiff and defendant by which Biscoe agreed to act as Blakeley's agent in collecting certain bonds and notes, to attend to the settlement of an estate, and to pay the balance over. As this was essentially a contract, the law afforded an adequate remedy without resort to equity. An action on the case, either in contract or in tort, would have been appropriate — the plaintiff could have recovered all of the damages to which he was entitled. Furthermore, if he only wanted the money remaining with Biscoe, he could have sued in assumpsit. If he also claimed damages, as he seemed to here, a special count for nonfeasance or misfeasance would have afforded redress. In any event, there was no need to resort to a court of equity. It was not an action for an account as Blakeley contended; a bill for an accounting could only be laid when there were mutual demands forming the grounds of a series of accounts, on one hand, and a series of payments on the other; here there was just one payment and one receipt. Furthermore, the bill did not allege the need to come into Chancery for a discovery because Blakeley did not argue that he was unable to prove the contract or the delivery of the notes to the defendant.

This was a case for an action at law, and the law was competent to afford the most ample redress. Thus, according the Judge Johnson, the chancellor would not take jurisdiction. Therefore, it was ordered that the demurrer to the bill be sustained and that the defendant recover his costs of suit from Blakeley.

Previous Case | Next Page | First Page of Opinion | Second Page of Opinion | Third Page of Opinion |