Skip to main content

Demurrer, circa 29 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street]

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 
Introduction to JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street Promissory Note from Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, 17 February 1841 Statement of Account from C. B. & M. B. Street, 26 February–July 1841 Praecipe, 7 February 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Summons, 14 February 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Praecipe, 3 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Subpoena, 3 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Declaration, circa 7 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Praecipe, circa 13 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Subpoena, 14 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Order to Plead, 20 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Pleas and Account, circa 23 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Pleas, 24 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Continuance, 25 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Demurrer, circa 29 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Demurrer, 30 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Praecipe, circa 15 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Subpoena, 16 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Praecipe, circa 17 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Subpoena, 18 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Notification of Death, 21 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Subpoena, 24 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Sustained Demurrer, 30 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Amended Pleas, circa 30 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Pleas, 31 October 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Motions, 1 November 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Demurrer, circa 18 May 1845 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Demurrer, 19 May 1845 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Demurrer Sustained and Overruled, 20 October 1845 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Demurrer Sustained and Leave to Amend, 21 October 1845 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Continuance, 22 May 1846 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, Dismissal, 22 May 1846 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Docket Entry, circa 22 May 1846 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street] Case File Wrapper, circa May 1846 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street]

Demurrer, circa 29 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street]

Source Note

and , attorneys, on behalf of JS, , , , and possibly the estate of , Demurrer, [, IL, ca. 29 May 1844], JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court 1846); handwriting of and unidentified scribe (presumably or William N. Grover); signatures of and [by ]; signatures of and William N. Grover [by unidentified scribe (presumably or William N. Grover)]; docket by , [, IL, ca. 29 May 1844]; notation by , [, Hancock Co., IL], 30 May 1844; two pages; Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL. Includes docket and notation. Transcription from digital image taken of the original in 2007.
One leaf, dimensions unknown, ruled with thirty-three lines printed in blue ink. The left side of the recto is torn, which suggests the leaf was separated from a book or larger sheet. The document was later trifolded and docketed by .
The document was filed with the Circuit Court in 1844, when clerk added a notation. The leaf presumably remained in the custody of the Hancock County Circuit Court from 1844 until 2007, when Joseph Smith Papers staff obtained digital images of the document. The document was missing from the circuit court when Joseph Smith Papers staff attempted to access it in 2021.

Historical Introduction

About 29 May 1844, attorneys representing JS and his associates , , , and possibly the estate of wrote a for a lawsuit that the men had initiated in February in the Circuit Court in , Illinois, to recover the remaining debt owed on the sale of the steamboat Nauvoo. JS and his associates were suing Charles B. and Marvin B. Street, brothers and business partners who had purchased the boat, and their associate , who was not a shareholder in the boat but had acted as surety for the Streets. The case represents a rare example of JS initiating a lawsuit and acting as a plaintiff. Most of the litigation he was involved in, particularly in 1844, was initiated by others against him.
purchased the steamboat Des Moines from the government at a public auction in , Illinois, for $4,866.38 in September 1840, with JS, , , and acting as sureties to the purchase. Although Haws had apparently made the purchase alone, later events suggest that JS and the other men acted as co-owners in the venture. After the purchase, they renamed the boat Nauvoo. JS and his co-owners in the venture soon faced financial difficulties. After operating for only a few weeks, the boat sustained damage. JS claimed that the pilots, William and Benjamin Holladay, were responsible for the damage and attempted to sue them to recover the cost of the repairs. However, before the case came to trial, JS had it dismissed, possibly because he had reached an agreement with the Holladays or because they were no longer in the area and able to be brought to trial. In January 1841 JS and his partners—including , who at some point before this time replaced Henry W. Miller as a partner in the steamboat endeavor—sold one-sixth ownership interest in the steamboat to Edwin Guthrie. They sold their other five-sixths interest in the boat to Charles and Marvin Street, merchants in . As part of the purchase, the Streets signed a promissory note on 17 February for $3,133.62, due on 1 June 1841. signed the note as surety. The Streets made a payment of $1,025 on 22 June 1841, but the remaining balance was apparently left unpaid and the matter unsettled.
In February 1844 JS and his partners—except , who died in 1842—began the lawsuit against the Streets and to recover the remainder of the unpaid promissory note. While the motivation behind resuming these proceedings at this time is unclear, it is possible JS or his partners needed the money the Streets owed. They filed a declaration, a legal document that detailed the cause of action against the defendants, claiming that the Streets had not fulfilled the debt, which they had agreed to pay in a variety of goods by June 1841.
In response, the Streets and , through their attorneys, and William N. Grover, filed pleas that challenged factual issues in the declaration. These pleas alleged that the Streets had not promised to pay the debt in the manner specified in the declaration. They further accused JS and his partners of owing the Streets money and claimed $5,000. Included in this claim was the allegation that the earlier damage to the steamboat had tarnished its reputation and made it difficult to find business, costing them $2,000 in lost income. If the $5,000 claim were granted by the court, it would have resulted in JS and his partners owing the Streets money and the court would have rendered a judgment in the Streets’ favor.
In response to the Streets’ pleas, JS’s lawyers wrote a special , featured here. Whereas a general demurrer objected to matters of substance of the claims made in the plea, a special demurrer raised concerns with matters of form. In the demurrer, JS’s attorneys argued that the pleas filed by the defendants were double, meaning individual pleas answered several counts from the declaration that were “distinct & seperate.” This lack of separation between the distinct issues, according to Joseph and Thomas Chitty’s treatise, would “bar the action” because each plea “requires a separate answer.”
The demurrer was presumably written by , one of JS’s attorneys, the first signatory on the document. It was likely written about 29 May 1844, as it was filed on 30 May by Circuit Court clerk .
In October 1844, several months after the deaths of JS and , the Circuit Court sustained the special demurrer and then allowed the Streets to amend their pleas. The legal proceedings continued for the next two years before the case was finally dismissed in May 1846.

Footnotes

  1. The demurrer was signed “Richardson & Skinner” and was presumably written by attorney William Richardson. However, other documents in the case identify the plaintiffs’ lawyers as George Bachman and Onias Skinner. It is unclear if Skinner had multiple legal partners or if Richardson worked with Bachman and Skinner. (See, for example, JS et al., Praecipe for Summons, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Feb. 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; JS et al., Declaration, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 7 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Historical Department, Materials Received from Mark W. Hofmann, CHL.)

  2. JS et al., Praecipe for Summons, Hancock Co., IL, 7 Feb. 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; JS et al., Declaration, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 7 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Historical Department, Materials Received from Mark W. Hofmann, CHL.

  3. Peter Haws et al., Promissory Note, Quincy, IL, 10 Sept. 1840, microfilm, Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury, copy at CHL; Robert E. Lee to Peter Haws, Indenture, Quincy, IL, 10 Sept. 1840, CHL; Bentley, “Suffering Shipwreck and Bankruptcy,” 311; Oaks and Bentley, “Joseph Smith and Legal Process,” 736–740. On 10 September 1840, JS and his partners provided government agent First Lieutenant Robert E. Lee with a promissory note due in eight months, on 10 May 1841.

    Promissory Note, 10 Sept. 1840. Microfilm. Records of the Solicitor of the Treasury. Copy at CHL.

    Lee, Robert E. Indenture, to Peter Haws, Quincy, IL, 10 Sept. 1840. CHL.

    Bentley, Joseph I. “Suffering Shipwreck and Bankruptcy in 1842 and Beyond.” In Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch, 309–328. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014.

    Oaks, Dallin H., and Joseph I. Bentley. “Joseph Smith and Legal Process: In the Wake of the Steamboat Nauvoo.” Brigham Young University Law Review, no. 3 (1976): 735–782.

  4. According to legal records, JS and his co-owners claimed that the damage to the boat was extensive and repairs amounted to $2,000. They claimed an additional $1,000 in lost profits. Although arrested in November 1840, the Holladays were not subpoenaed to appear before the court until April 1841. According to Edwin Guthrie, a later shareholder in the steamboat, the Holladays wanted to negotiate a settlement with JS and avoid going to court on the matter. It is unclear if they did so. However, the lawsuit against them was dismissed at JS’s request in May 1841. (George Miller et al., Declaration, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 Apr. 1841, Miller et al. v. B. Holladay and W. Holladay [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1841], Hancock Co., IL, Probate and Court Records, ca. 1850–1963, item 3, Misc. Court Records, [182?]–[184?], p. [1], microfilm 4,661,986, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; Bentley, “Suffering Shipwreck and Bankruptcy,” 312–313; Edwin Guthrie to JS et al., between 1 Feb. and 4 Nov. 1841, JS Collection, CHL; see also Historical Introduction to Miller et al. v. B. Holladay and W. Holladay.)

    Bentley, Joseph I. “Suffering Shipwreck and Bankruptcy in 1842 and Beyond.” In Sustaining the Law: Joseph Smith’s Legal Encounters, edited by Gordon A. Madsen, Jeffrey N. Walker, and John W. Welch, 309–328. Provo, UT: BYU Studies, 2014.

  5. Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL. The January 1841 indenture between JS and his partners and Guthrie is in private possession, but an auction catalog captured the details of the indenture. For his share of the boat, Guthrie agreed to two payments. The first, for $811.06, was due 1 May 1841, while the second, for $415, was due 1 November 1841. (Floyd E. Risvold Collection, 2:78–79.)

    The Floyd E. Risvold Collection: American Expansion and the Journey West. 3 vols. 2009. Catalog of the 27–29 January 2010 auction of the Floyd E. Risvold estate at New York City by the Spink Shreves Galleries and Spink Smythe of Dallas, TX.

  6. See Gregg, History of Hancock County, Illinois, 871.

    Gregg, Thomas. History of Hancock County, Illinois, Together with an Outline History of the State, and a Digest of State Laws. Chicago: Charles C. Chapman, 1880.

  7. JS et al., Declaration, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 7 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Historical Department, Materials Received from Mark W. Hofmann, CHL. A copy of the promissory note appears in the circa 7 May declaration.

  8. The plaintiffs’ complaint and declaration alleged that the debt was payable in store goods, groceries, hardware, and other foodstuffs. An account dated 26 February 1841 indicates that JS and Haws purchased goods from the Streets amounting to $828.30. It is unclear if this amount was part of the partial payment on 22 June 1841 or another earlier payment meant to be subtracted from the Streets’ debt. (JS et al., Declaration, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 7 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Historical Department, Materials Received from Mark W. Hofmann, CHL; Statement of Account, 26 Feb.–July 1841, Claims on the Estates of Joseph and Hyrum Smith, 1844–1845, BYU.)

  9. JS, Journal, 31 July 1842. Knight is named in some of the legal proceedings but omitted in several, and those that do name him specify that he was deceased before the suit commenced. It is not clear whether his survivors or estate took an active part in the lawsuit.

  10. The delay of nearly three years was within the Illinois statute of limitations, which stipulated that a lawsuit could be brought to recover an unpaid promissory note within sixteen years of the debt becoming due. (An Act for the Limitation of Actions and for Avoiding Vexatious Law Suits [10 Feb. 1827], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois [1839], p. 454, sec. 4.)

    The Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois: Containing All the Laws . . . Passed by the Ninth General Assembly, at Their First Session, Commencing December 1, 1834, and Ending February 13, 1835; and at Their Second Session, Commencing December 7, 1835, and Ending January 18, 1836; and Those Passed by the Tenth General Assembly, at Their Session Commencing December 5, 1836, and Ending March 6, 1837; and at Their Special Session, Commencing July 10, and Ending July 22, 1837. . . . Compiled by Jonathan Young Scammon. Chicago: Stephen F. Gale, 1839.

  11. JS et al., Declaration, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 7 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Historical Department, Materials Received from Mark W. Hofmann, CHL; “Declaration,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:424–426.

    Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union; With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Deacon and Peterson, 1854.

  12. Docket Entry, Pleas, Carthage, IL, 24 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Records, 1829–1897, vol. D, p. 131, microfilm 947,496, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; Stephen and Troubat, Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions, 66–67. The attorneys advertised as the firm Morrison & Grover in the Warsaw Signal. Morrison had an office in Carthage, and Grover had an office in Warsaw, Illinois. (Advertisement, Warsaw [IL] Signal, 17 Apr. 1844, [3].)

    Stephen, Henry John, and Francis J. Troubat. A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions; Comprising a Summary View of the Whole Proceedings in a Suit at Law. 2nd American ed. Philadelphia: Robert H. Small, 1831.

    Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

  13. Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL. In pleas related to “actions upon simple contracts or specialties, for the payment of money, the defence frequently is a cross demand for a debt due from the plaintiff to the defendant.” The claim the Streets made was a set-off, where “a defendant is in general entitled to retain, or claim by way of deduction, all just allowances or demands accruing to him, or payments made by him, in respect of the same transaction or account, which forms the ground of action. But this cannot be termed a set-off in the strict legal sense of the word, because it is not in the nature of a cross demand, or mutual debt, but rather constitutes a deduction, rendering the sum to be recovered by the plaintiff so much less.” (Chitty and Chitty, Treatise on the Parties to Actions, and on Pleading, 1:568–571, italics in original.)

    Chitty, Joseph, and Thomas Chitty. A Treatise on the Parties to Actions, and on Pleading, with Second and Third Volumes, Containing Precedents of Pleadings, and Copious Directory Notes. 3 Vols. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam, 1840.

  14. Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL.

  15. See Stephen and Troubat, Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions, 64–65.

    Stephen, Henry John, and Francis J. Troubat. A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions; Comprising a Summary View of the Whole Proceedings in a Suit at Law. 2nd American ed. Philadelphia: Robert H. Small, 1831.

  16. Chitty and Chitty, Treatise on the Parties to Actions, and on Pleading, 1:531–532; Stephen and Troubat, Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions, 173–174, 292–293.

    Chitty, Joseph, and Thomas Chitty. A Treatise on the Parties to Actions, and on Pleading, with Second and Third Volumes, Containing Precedents of Pleadings, and Copious Directory Notes. 3 Vols. Springfield, MA: G. and C. Merriam, 1840.

    Stephen, Henry John, and Francis J. Troubat. A Treatise on the Principles of Pleading in Civil Actions; Comprising a Summary View of the Whole Proceedings in a Suit at Law. 2nd American ed. Philadelphia: Robert H. Small, 1831.

  17. Richardson was an Illinois lawyer and politician. (Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1808.)

    Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774–1989: The Continental Congress September 5, 1774, to October 21, 1788, and the Congress of the United States from the First through the One Hundredth Congresses March 4, 1789, to January 3, 1989, Inclusive. Edited by Kathryn Allamong Jacob and Bruce A. Ragsdale. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989.

  18. Docket Entry, Demurrer Sustained, Carthage, IL, 30 Oct. 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street (Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846), Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Records, 1829–1897, vol. D, p. 223, microfilm 947,496, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. When the pleas were amended, they kept the first plea, canceled the second and third pleas, turned the original fourth and fifth pleas into the second and third, and added three new pleas. (Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844; Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Amended Pleas, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 30 Oct. 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL.)

  19. See Historical Introduction to JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street. When the Streets’ lawyers amended the pleas, they filed an additional sixth plea. Richardson and Skinner then filed a demurrer against several of the pleas. Ultimately, the court accepted only the first, fourth, and fifth pleas. The case finally ended when the plaintiffs’ attorneys motioned to dismiss the lawsuit. (Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Amended Pleas, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 30 Oct. 1844; JS et al., Demurrer, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 18 May 1845, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; Docket Entry, Demurrer Sustained and Overruled, Carthage, IL, 20 Oct. 1845, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Records, 1829–1897, vol. D, p. 318; Docket Entry, Dismissal, Carthage, IL, 22 May 1846, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Records, 1829–1897, vol. D, p. 443, microfilm 947,496, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.)

Page [1]

Go to next page 2
Smith & others
vs
Street & others
And said plaintiffs come and say that Defendents pleas No 2, 3, 4, and 5 are severally insufficient in law to bar plaintiffs recoverey whereup[on] they pray Judgt &c for want of good pleas by Defendants in this behalf And for cause of special demurrer to said pleas plaintiffs set down the following each plea is double in this that it answers several counts in plaintiffs declaration which counts are distinct & seperate said pleas are informal & defective otherwise
& for Pl[ainti]ff
Joinder in Demurrer
& Grover [12 lines blank] [p. [1]]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page [1]

Go to next page 2

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Demurrer, circa 29 May 1844 [JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street]
ID #
5654
Total Pages
2
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page
  • William Alexander Richardson
  • Unidentified

Footnotes

  1. William Richardson handwriting begins.

  2. In the second plea, Charles B. and Marvin B. Street claimed that the promissory notes should not be upheld because they were made out for five-sixths of an unencumbered steamboat in good repute but that the steamboat they received was detained at various ports and the reputation was destroyed to the point where they could not obtain freight. In the third plea, the Streets claimed that JS and his associates lied about the reputation and credit of the boat, because the Streets had to pay off a $1,200 lien against the boat, resulting in a two-month delay in voyages, and that because the boat’s reputation kept them from obtaining freight, they “were prevented from making as they reasonaably expected to have a large sum of money from freghts to wit the sum of $5000.” In the fourth plea, the Streets claimed that JS and his partners were indebted to them for $5,000, which exceeded the debt the Streets owed to JS and his partners for the purchase of the steamboat. As such, they requested that the debt owed to them be subtracted from the debt they owed for the purchase of the boat. In the fifth plea, the Streets argued that despite JS and his partners’ representations, the steamboat was not free of debt and unencumbered when the Streets purchased it and resolving the encumbrances resulted in a six-month delay in shipping, which injured the reputation of the steamboat and injured the Streets financially, in the form of $2,000 in lost earnings from freight and passengers. (Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL.)

  3. This likely refers to the fact that Charles B. and Marvin B. Street’s pleas included claims that could not be easily supported, such as lost income or other debts that had no connection to the original debt. (Charles B. Street and Marvin B. Street, Pleas and Account, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 23 May 1844, JS et al. v. C. B. Street and M. B. Street [Hancock Co. Cir. Ct. 1846], Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; see also Historical Introduction to Miller et al. v. B. Holladay and W. Holladay.)

  4. William Richardson handwriting ends; unidentified handwriting, presumably Thomas Morrison or William N. Grover, begins.

  5. According to John Bouvier’s law dictionary, a “joinder in demurrer” is “when one of the parties demurs to the pleadings of the other. . . . In such case the facts being admitted, the court decide the law of the case, which is the matter in dispute between the parties.” (“Issue in Law,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:718.)

    Bouvier, John. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States of America, and of the Several States of the American Union; With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Deacon and Peterson, 1854.

Go to page