Francis Dixon and Francis Wilson vs James C Smirl

Dixon & Wilson vs J. C. Smirl

Description:	On June 19, 1820 Francis Dixon and Francis Wilson, merchants trading under the firm of Dixon and Wilson, sue James C. Smirl for trespass and damages. On the back of the writ it states that the writ was executed August 31, 1820 by Deputy Sheriff S. Almy. Francis Cunningham was taken in on special bail for the defendant. On the same day the plaintiff, by Jack Call his attorney, filed a declaration in court. In his declaration the plaintiffs trading in the firm of Dixon and Wilson complain that James (alias) J. C. Smirl be taken in custody for trespass in the case where Carter Beamon on September 24, 1818 by promissory note promised to pay James C. Smirl on order of eighteen months after the date the sum of $125 plus then and there did delivery it to the defendant that the note said was owed on August 13, 1820. The note was signed over to the plaintiffs with James Smirl endorsement for payment owed to plaintiffs for debt. At the September term 1820 a continues to April term 1821 attorney for both plaintiff and defendant come to court. The defendant filed by his attorney a plea showing where Carter Beamon swore that on September 24, 1818 he agreed to pay within 18 months the $125 to James Smirl and on back it read that on August 13, 1819 J. C. Smirl signed this promissory note over to Dixon and Wilson. On May 11, 1820 a jury find for the defendant. On Friday morning the parties and their attorney appear in court and plead arguments for a new trial, it is over ruled. The court orders that defendant recover his costs and charges on his behalf from the plaintiff. The defendant files a writ of error against plaintiff and states he shouldnt be held responsible for the amount the said promissory note was for plus cost and charges and damages owed plaintiff due to Carter Beamons actions of illegal sale and delivery of a negro man named Nathaniel called Nat. In the declaration it states that Nathaniel was to be transported from Louisville Ky. to Louisiana by James Smirl who had illegally carried him from Indiana to Louisville. He states that in truth the said Nathaniel was at the time of the sale a freed man by the laws of the U.S. and the Constitution and state of Indiana and not the slave servant of James C. Smirl and he should not be charged with the debt. The plaintiffs lawyer Jack Call says plaintiffs should not be precluded from having and maintaining the case due to defendants sufficient cause. the court sustains demure of plaintiff.
Origin:	2016-10-12
Created By:	Indiana. Circuit Court (Knox County);
Contributor(s):	Doty, Jonathan; Barnett, Mark; Ruble, Henry;
Source:	http://indianamemory.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/ving/id/15414
Collection:	Early Vincennes, 1732-1835
Rights:	http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/
Copyright:	No Copyright - United States
Subjects:	Indiana Territory Affidavits -- Indiana Territory African American men -- Indiana Territory Bail -- Indiana Territory Bonds -- Indiana Territory Depositions -- Indiana Territory Merchants -- Indiana Territory Personal property -- Valuation -- Indiana Territory Promissory notes -- Indiana Territory Slavery -- Indiana Territory Writs -- Indiana Territory Court Records

Further information on this record can be found at its source.