Skip to main content

Introduction to E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS

  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 
Introduction to E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS Letters of Administration, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Letters of Administration, 17 July 1844, Copy [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Oath, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Oath, 17 July 1844, Copy [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Bond, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Bond, 17 July 1844, Copy [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Warrant, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Docket Entry, Administration Papers, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Inventory and Bill of Appraisal, 7–10 August 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Oath, 10 August 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Affidavit, 29 August 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Docket Entry, Affidavit and Citation, 29 August 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Citation, 29 August 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Docket Entry, Citation and Bond, 11 September 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS] Docket Entry, Letters of Administration Revoked, 18 September 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]

Introduction to E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS

Page

E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS
Hancock Co., Illinois, Probate Court, 17 July 1844–18 September 1844
 
W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS
Hancock Co., Illinois, Circuit Court, 25 October 1844
 
Historical Introduction
On 17 July 1844, twenty days after JS’s death, the Probate Court appointed the administratrix of his estate. JS’s financial situation was extremely complex at the end of his life due to his position as trustee for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. According to law, any religious organization could be incorporated and elect trustees to hold up to five acres of property for meetinghouses and forty acres for outdoor camp-meeting grounds. JS was elected trustee for the church in January 1841 and thereafter transferred considerable property that he had personally held for the church to himself as trustee, in excess of the forty-five-acre limit established by state law. In reviewing JS’s estate on 4 July 1844, , his financial clerk and agent, noted that most of JS’s assets were held by JS as church trustee but that most of his debts were personal. Contemplating the challenge of settling the estate, Clayton observed that “the situation looks gloomy.” Conflicts over what property belonged to JS’s personal estate versus what property belonged to the church characterized Emma Smith’s brief tenure as administratrix of the estate.
 
E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS
law specified that a widow had preference over all other claimants to administer her husband’s estate. Accordingly, in early July 1844, began taking the initial steps to supervise her late husband’s estate. In preparation, she worked closely with attorney and to review JS’s financial affairs. For example, on the advice of Woods, she had seven significant deeds recorded at , Illinois, including three deeds conveying property to JS as trustee for the church and three deeds from JS conveying property to her or their children. These and other early efforts to prepare JS’s estate for the probate court were complicated by competing claims over the church’s assets. Within a week of JS’s and ’s murders, their mother, , began pushing for their brother to come to , be appointed church , and—against the wishes of Emma Smith—take control of the church property that JS had held. Fearing that JS’s creditors would aggressively pursue their claims and demand payment at any sign of infighting, Clayton counseled the family to exercise patience, arguing that if they would “keep still there is property enough to pay the debts and plenty left for other uses.” Although Samuel Smith was recognized by many as a potential successor to JS or Hyrum Smith, his subsequent illness and death on 30 July 1844 forestalled any further conflict over his taking control of the church assets in JS’s name.
Nevertheless, the question of who would succeed JS as president or trustee of the church remained crucial for settling the estate. Throughout early July, repeatedly urged the few church leaders in to immediately appoint Nauvoo stake president as JS’s successor in the role of trustee and likely president of the church as well. However, in the absence of other senior church leaders, apostle and took control of church affairs in Nauvoo. These men, as well as recently returned apostle , pushed to delay appointing new trustees until after a majority of the had returned to the city. Although their view won out, their actions frustrated many influential church members and local leaders, including Emma Smith. On several occasions, Smith expressed to that she was “dissatisfied” with the conduct of Richards and Phelps and that she felt they were taking advantage of her. On one occasion, Clayton said, she threatened to “do the church all the injury she can” by claiming church real estate if they did not appoint a trustee of whom she approved. On 15 July, Clayton served as an intermediary between Smith and Richards, Pratt, and Phelps, obtaining a list of potential trustees that seemingly left her feeling “better satisfied” with the interim arrangements.
With the question of who would succeed JS as trustee for the church still unsettled, moved forward with her claims to his estate. On 17 July 1844, she, , , and her nephew traveled to , Illinois, to attend the Probate Court, presided over by . After Smith presented the facts of her husband’s death and testified that he had property in , she formally petitioned to be named the administratrix of his estate. As required by law, she took an oath and signed a security bond promising to fulfill her legal responsibilities as administratrix. Marks and Hunter signed the bond as surety. The bond included a $2,000 penalty for failure to comply. According to Illinois state law, the amount in the bond was set by the probate justice and was supposed to be equal to roughly twice the value of the estate. The court then granted Smith letters of administration authorizing her to settle JS’s estate. The court also issued a warrant to , , and , enabling them to appraise the “goods, , and personal estate” of JS. After Smith had been appointed administratrix, she formally petitioned the court to appoint her as the guardian of her minor children, which was granted.
and her trusted advisers then began working to settle the estate. One of the largest outstanding financial obligations was the approximately $3,800 that had been assigned to JS as part of his guardianship of the minor children of . Although JS had initiated an attempt to transfer this obligation and role to , these efforts were yet incomplete. On 30 July, Emma Smith and traveled to , Illinois, to resolve the guardianship, but Probate Justice of the Peace Andrew Miller informed them that settling “the Lawrence business” was impossible without the appointment of another guardian. Frustrated in their early efforts to settle this sizable obligation, Smith and Clayton turned to managing the rest of JS’s estate. In early August 1844, , , and Clayton began inventorying and appraising JS’s personal effects. They spent the morning of 7 August 1844 inventorying the property at JS’s and Emma Smith’s and then 10 August doing the same in . Their appraisal identified $1,022.25 of personal property belonging to JS. This did not include land or real estate owned by JS, which was dealt with separately under law, nor did it include any property owned by JS as trustee for the church. On 10 August 1844, they certified their inventory as correct and formally signed their oaths as appraisers. Emma Smith likewise certified their appraisal as a “true and perfect inventory” of JS’s effects. Although completed on 10 August, the inventory was not submitted to the probate court until 21 October 1844, likely due to subsequent conflicts over the administration of JS’s estate.
While the appraisers started their work, the majority of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles returned to in early August. On 8 August 1844, a special of the church voted to recognize the Quorum of the Twelve as JS’s successors. That same day, just before the conference, , , and met with to deliver funds from a land sale that Kimball had collected in the eastern . During their meeting Kimball “bore testimony to her of the good feelings of the Twelve towards her.” However, with the Twelve now returned and recognized as the leaders of the church, the issue of appointing church trustees resurfaced. On 9 August 1844, the Twelve nominated and as trustees for the church, and on 12 August the two men signed a certificate and legally assumed the role.
This appointment of trustees evidently rekindled earlier debates over the separation of church assets from JS’s personal assets, and in mid-August, , based on the advice of her attorneys, asserted a claim over the assets held by the trustees of the church. On 15 August, she and directed to compile a list of all land titles in the hands of the church trustees, all land titles bought or sold by JS as trustee, all promissory notes and accounts held by JS as trustee, and any other assets held by JS as trustee. Of particular interest was the Maid of Iowa steamboat, which Woods argued should have been listed on the inventory of property that had been appraised by Clayton, , and . Clayton feared that Woods was “laying a deep plan to find out the situation of the private & public matters of the Church and to lay a trap for our ruin,” and he objected to this course of action. He later sought counsel from and , who agreed that Woods should not interfere “with the business of the Trustee in Trust.” Clayton then returned to Smith, informed her of his suspicions, and said he would not lend his hand “to ruin the church.” This refusal led to a severe argument over finances, as well as certain “secret things” (likely plural marriage) that Emma Smith believed had led to the deaths of JS and . Following this fight, the working relationship between Clayton and Emma Smith deteriorated. Smith subsequently accused Clayton of stealing $200 in gold and refused him access to her husband’s papers and desk, although Clayton claimed these belonged to the Nauvoo Temple Committee. On 27 August, Cahoon and Clayton forcibly removed the desk from Smith’s home, although she had already emptied it of its contents. By that time, Smith’s relationship with the church had completely soured. In addition, Smith appropriated a $1,000 loan JS had obtained for the city of as a personal asset of JS’s estate, leading to a conflict between her and city officials, including Clayton.
While feuded with church and civic leaders in over finances, the Probate Court reevaluated her appointment as administratrix of JS’s estate. On 29 August 1844, appeared before the court and testified that he believed that the security bond signed by Smith, , and was “insufficient for the protecti[on] of the creditiors of the Estate.” issued a to Smith, directing her to appear before the court on 11 September 1844 to answer Babbitt’s allegations. When she failed to appear on the appointed day, the court summarily ruled that she needed to sign a new bond with the penal sum of $6,000 within five days of the court’s decision. After Smith did not comply with the order to give a new security bond, the court formally revoked her letters of administration on 18 September 1844. The court appointed as administrator of the estate the following day.
 
W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS
While ’s administration of her husband’s estate was being challenged, former Latter-day Saints and initiated an suit to claim $300 in damages. The nature of the original obligation is unknown. On 3 September 1844, the Laws through their attorneys initiated the lawsuit in the Circuit Court and the court issued a summons to Smith as administratrix of JS’s estate and subpoenas for three witnesses. Smith did not receive her summons until 27 September 1844, nine days after she had been dismissed as the administrator of JS’s estate. The suit was scheduled to be heard at the October term of the court, but William and Wilson Law failed to file their declaration as required by law. When the case came to trial on 22 October 1844, the court continued it to the next session “for want of a declaration.” Three days later, Wilson Law personally petitioned the court to dismiss the suit at plaintiff’s costs, which was done. The court recouped its costs in May 1845.
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
 
E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS, Hancock Co., Illinois, Probate Court

1844 (12)

July (5)

17 July 1844

David Greenleaf, Letters of Administration, to Emma Smith, for JS, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 17 July 1844. Not extant.
  • 17 July 1844; microfilm in reel 25 of Wilford C. Wood, Collection of Church Historical Materials, CHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf; docket in unidentified handwriting.
  • Ca. 17 July 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. C, pp. 28–29, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.
17 July 1844

Emma Smith, Oath, before David Greenleaf, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 17 July 1844; BYU; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of David Greenleaf; signature of Emma Smith; docket and notation in handwriting of David Greenleaf.
  • Ca. 17 July 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. C, p. 29, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.
17 July 1844

Emma Smith and Others, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, to “the people of the State of Illinois”

  • 17 July 1844; photocopy in Historical Department, Nineteenth-Century Legal Documents Collection, 1829–1973, CHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf; signatures of Emma Smith, William Marks, Edward Hunter; docket and notation in handwriting of David Greenleaf.
  • Ca. 17 July 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. C, pp. 27–28, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.
17 July 1844

David Greenleaf, Warrant, to Reynolds Cahoon and Others, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

17 July 1844

Docket Entry, Administration Papers, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 17 July 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. A, p. 341, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.

August (5)

7–10 August 1844

Reynolds Cahoon and Others, Inventory and Bill of Appraisal, Hancock Co., IL

10 August 1844

Reynolds Cahoon and Others, Oath, before Aaron Johnson, Nauvoo, Hancock Co., IL

29 August 1844

Almon Babbitt, Affidavit, before David Greenleaf, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 29 Aug. 1844; Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; handwriting of Almon Babbitt; signature of David Greenleaf; notation in handwriting of David Greenleaf.
29 August 1844

Docket Entry, Affidavit and Citation, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 29 Aug. 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. A, p. 351, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.
29 August 1844

David Greenleaf, Citation, to Hancock Co. Sheriff or Constable, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 29 Aug. 1844; Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of David Greenleaf; docket and notations in handwriting of Miner R. Deming.

September (2)

11 September 1844

Docket Entry, Citation and Bond, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 11 Sept. 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. A, p. 354, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.
18 September 1844

Docket Entry, Letters of Administration Revoked, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 18 Sept. 1844; Hancock County Probate Court, Probate Record, vol. A, p. 354, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David Greenleaf.
 
W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS, Hancock Co., Illinois, Circuit Court

1844 (7)

September (4)

Ca. 2 September 1844

Warren & Higbee on behalf of W. & W. Law, Praecipe, to Hancock Co. Circuit Court Clerk, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 2 Sept. 1844–A

  • Ca. 2 Sept. 1844; Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Legal Documents, 1839–1860, Twentieth-Century Western and Mormon Manuscripts, BYU; unidentified handwriting; docket in unidentified handwriting; notation probably in handwriting of David E. Head.
Ca. 2 September 1844

Warren & Higbee on behalf of W. & W. Law, Praecipe, to Hancock Co. Circuit Court Clerk, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL, ca. 2 Sept. 1844–B

  • Ca. 2 Sept. 1844; Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Legal Documents, 1839–1860, Twentieth-Century Western and Mormon Manuscripts, BYU; unidentified handwriting; docket in unidentified handwriting; notation probably in handwriting of David E. Head.
3 September 1844

David E. Head on behalf of Jacob B. Backenstos, Summons, to Hancock Co. Sheriff, for Emma Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 3 Sept. 1844; Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Legal Documents, 1839–1860, Twentieth-Century Western and Mormon Manuscripts, BYU; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of David E. Head; docket printed with manuscript additions in handwriting of David E. Head; notations printed with manuscript additions in handwriting of Miner R. Deming; notation in handwriting of David E. Head.
3 September 1844

David E. Head on behalf of Jacob B. Backenstos, Subpoena, to Hancock Co. Sheriff, for Isaac Alred and Others, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 3 Sept. 1844; Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court Legal Documents, 1839–1860, Twentieth-Century Western and Mormon Manuscripts, BYU; printed form with manuscript additions in handwriting of David E. Head; docket printed with manuscript additions in handwriting of David E. Head; notations printed with manuscript additions in handwriting of Miner R. Deming; notation in handwriting of David E. Head.

October (3)

22 October 1844

Docket Entry, Continuance, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 22 Oct. 1844; Hancock County Circuit Court Record, vol. D, p. 178, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David E. Head.
Ca. 24 October 1844

Wilson Law, Motion, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • Ca. 24 Oct. 1844; microfilm in Circuit Court Case Files, 1830–1900, CHL; handwriting of Almon Babbitt; signature of Wilson Law; docket in handwriting of Almon Babbitt; notation probably in handwriting of Jacob B. Backenstos.
25 October 1844

Docket Entry, Dismissal, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • 25 Oct. 1844; Hancock County Circuit Court Record, vol. D, p. 202, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL; handwriting of David E. Head.

1845 (2)

February (1)

Between 22 November 1844 and 20 February 1845

Docket Entry, Fieri Facias, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • Between 22 Nov. 1844 and 20 Feb. 1845; Hancock County Circuit Court, Execution Docket, vol. B, p. [197], Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; image in Hancock County Papers, 1830–1872, CHL; unidentified handwriting.

May (1)

Ca. 28 May 1845

Docket Entry, Carthage, Hancock Co., IL

  • Ca. 28 May 1845; Hancock County Circuit Court, Judgment Docket, vol. B, p. 91, Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; image in Hancock County Papers, 1830–1872, CHL; unidentified handwriting.
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Introduction to E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS
ID #
20065
Total Pages
1
Print Volume Location
Handwriting on This Page

    Footnotes

    1. [1]

      An Act to Amend “An Act in relation to Religious Societies” [2 Mar. 1839], Laws of the State of Illinois [1838–1839], p. 267, secs. 1–2; An Act concerning Religious Societies [6 Feb. 1835], Laws of the State of Illinois [1834–1835], pp. 147–149.

      Laws of the State of Illinois, Passed by the Eleventh General Assembly at Their Session Began and Held at Vandalia, on the Third of December, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-Eight. Vandalia, IL: William Walters, 1839.

      Laws of the State of Illinois, Passed by the Ninth General Assembly, at Their First Session, Commencing December 1, 1834, and Ending February 13, 1835. Vandalia, IL: J. Y. Sawyer, 1835.

    2. [2]

      Appointment as Trustee, 2 Feb. 1841; Oaks and Bentley, “Joseph Smith and Legal Process,” 771–772. Although state law identified this office as a trustee, Latter-day Saints combined this legal title with language from common law conveyances to create the title of “trustee-in-trust” for the church. (Oman, “‘Established Agreeable to the Laws of Our Country,’” 218.)

      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.

      Oman, Nathan B. “‘Established Agreeable to the Laws of Our Country’: Mormonism, Church Corporations, and the Long Legacy of America’s First Disestablishment.” Journal of Law and Religion 36, no. 2 (August 2021): 202–229.

    3. [3]

      Clayton, Journal, 4 July 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    4. [4]

      Most of these conflicts were recorded by William Clayton in his journal. Emma Smith’s motivations, thoughts, and voice are largely absent from the historical record at this point, although her son Joseph Smith III later recorded that the family believed they had been “subjected gradually to a series of injustices” through the administration of JS’s estate. (“The Memoirs of President Joseph Smith: Oppression,” Saints’ Herald, 29 Jan. 1935, 144.)

      Saints’ Herald. Independence, MO. 1860–.

    5. [5]

      An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, pp. 698–699, sec. 51.

      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.

    6. [6]

      See Clayton, Journal, 3–4 July 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    7. [7]

      Although Nauvoo had established an office to record deeds in 1842, Woods argued that this action had been illegal, meaning that the deeds recorded by the city would not have been recognized as legal copies. Among the deeds Emma Smith took to be recorded in Carthage are two deeds from John and Malinda Robinson Barnett transferring property to JS and his minor sons, one deed from Daniel H. and Eliza Robison Wells to JS for the temple lot, three deeds from JS conveying property to Emma or their minor children, and a deed for a lot in Nauvoo donated to the church by Orson and Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde. (Clayton, Journal, 4 July 1844; Ordinance, 5 Mar. 1842–B; Deed, John and Malinda Robinson Barnett to Joseph Smith III and Others, 21 Mar. 1842; Deed from John and Malinda Robinson Barnett, 15 Jan. 1844; Deed from Daniel H. and Eliza Robison Wells, 4 Feb. 1843; Deed to Emma Smith and Others, 12 July 1843; Deed to Emma Smith, 13 June 1842; Deed to Julia M. Smith and Others, 31 Dec. 1841; Deed from Orson and Marinda Nancy Johnson Hyde, 10 Feb. 1843.)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    8. [8]

      Clayton, Journal, 2 July 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    9. [9]

      Clayton, Journal, 12 July and 1 Aug. 1844; Historian’s Office, General Church Minutes, 8 Aug. 1844; Hugh Herringshaw, Nauvoo, IL, to William Smith, [Philadelphia, PA], 28 Aug. 1844, in Prophet, 21 Sept. 1844, [2]; Jonathan C. Wright, Nauvoo, IL, to William Smith, [Philadelphia, PA], 28 Aug. 1844, in Prophet, 21 Dec. 1844, [2]–[3]; Lucy Mack Smith, History, 1845, 312–314.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

      Historian’s Office. General Church Minutes, 1839–1877. CHL

      The Prophet. New York City, NY. May 1844–Dec. 1845.

    10. [10]

      Clayton, Journal, 4, 8, 12, and 13 July 1844; Richards, Journal, 8 July 1844; Monroe, Journal, 24 Apr. 1845.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

      Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

      Monroe, James M. Journal, 1841–1842, 1845. CHL.

    11. [11]

      Clayton, Journal, 6, 7, 12, and 14 July 1844; Richards, Journal, 14 July 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

      Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

    12. [12]

      Clayton, Journal, 6 and 13–15 July 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    13. [13]

      At this stage, Phelps, Richards, and Pratt were planning to appoint four trustees to supervise church assets. At the 15 July meeting with Clayton, they relayed to Emma Smith their inclination to nominate Clayton and Alpheus Cutler as two of the trustees. (Clayton, Journal, 14–15 July 1844.)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    14. [14]

      Richards, Journal, 17 July 1844; Hancock Co., IL, County Court, Probate Journals, 1839–1923, vol. A, pp. 340–342, 17 July 1844, microfilm 954,481, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

      Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

      U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    15. [15]

      Hancock Co., IL, County Court, Probate Journals, 1839–1923, vol. A, pp. 340–342, 17 July 1844, microfilm 954,481, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

      U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    16. [16]

      Oath, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; Bond, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, p. 703, sec. 64.

      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.

    17. [17]

      Letters of Administration, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].

    18. [18]

      Warrant, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]. Illinois law directed probate justices to appoint “three persons of discretion, not related to the deceased, nor interested in the administration of the estate” to appraise the assets of an estate. Emma Smith likely suggested that the court appoint Cahoon, Cutler, and Clayton as appraisers. Because of Cahoon’s and Cutler’s roles as members of the Nauvoo Temple Committee and Clayton’s position as JS’s financial clerk, the three men were likely intimately aware of JS’s financial situation. Emma Smith had also worked closely with these three men to prepare JS’s estate for settlement. (An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, pp. 706–707, sec. 78; Clayton, Journal, 3, 4, 12, and 15 July 1844.)

      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.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    19. [19]

      Hancock Co., IL, County Court, Probate Journals, 1839–1923, vol. A, pp. 340–342, 17 July 1844, microfilm 954,481, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

      U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    20. [20]

      Introduction to JS Guardian of Maria Lawrence et al., Babbitt Guardian of James Lawrence et al. v. William Law et al., and Maria Lawrence et al. v. Coolidge Administrator of the Estate of JS.

    21. [21]

      Clayton, Journal, 30–31 July 1844. The issue of JS’s financial obligations as guardian of the Lawrence children would not be settled until 1846. (See Introduction to JS Guardian of Maria Lawrence et al., Babbitt Guardian of James Lawrence et al. v. William Law et al., and Maria Lawrence et al. v. Coolidge Administrator of the Estate of JS.)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    22. [22]

      Clayton, Journal, 7 and 10 Aug. 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    23. [23]

      An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, pp. 711–712, secs. 98-102.

      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.

    24. [24]

      Warrant, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; Inventory and Bill of Appraisal, 7–10 Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].

    25. [25]

      Historian’s Office, General Church Minutes, 8 Aug. 1844.

      Historian’s Office. General Church Minutes, 1839–1877. CHL

    26. [26]

      Clayton, Journal, 8 Aug. 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    27. [27]

      Richards, Journal, 9 Aug. 1844; Newel K. Whitney and George Miller, Appointment as Trustees, 12 Aug. 1844, Nauvoo Trustees Papers, 1844–1848, CHL.

      Richards, Willard. Journals, 1836–1853. Willard Richards, Papers, 1821–1854. CHL. MS 1490, boxes 1–2.

      Nauvoo Trustees Papers, 1844–1848. CHL.

    28. [28]

      Clayton, Journal, 15 Aug. 1844. Emma Smith’s and James Woods’s motivations for making this claim are unclear. A subsequent letter from Quincy attorney James Ralston helps elucidate the legal arguments that had been made by Woods. Sometime in August 1844, Smith evidently requested that Ralston investigate her claim to a farm in Adams County. In his 20 August 1844 response, Ralston stated that she and JS had transferred it to JS as trustee for the church and that the deed specified that she had no claim on the property. However, Ralston also argued that because the church could not hold real estate beyond what was allowed by state law, the deed was void and title should revert to Emma Smith upon JS’s death. In light of this argument, Ralston counseled Smith to look to her “legal rights” and stake a claim on the property “before the church or any person in their behalf has taken possession of this land or procured even acknowledgement of them.” (James H. Ralston to Emma Smith, 20 Aug. 1844, microfilm, reel 25, Wilford C. Wood Collection of Church Historical Materials, CHL.)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

      Wood, Wilford C. Collection of Church Historical Materials. Microfilm. CHL. MS 8617.

    29. [29]

      Clayton, Journal, 15 Aug. 1844. The Maid of Iowa steamboat had been purchased from Dan Jones by JS, then transferred to Emma Smith, and then to JS as trustee-in-trust of the church. Church leaders, as well as Jones, considered the boat to be church property. In August 1844, Jones renegotiated JS’s debt from purchasing the steamboat not through Emma Smith or the legal estate proceedings, but through trustees Newel K. Whitney and George Miller. (Introduction to Moffet Administrator of the Estate of JS; Claim, ca. Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; see also Pay Order, 25 Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; Pay Order, ca. Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    30. [30]

      Clayton, Journal, 15 Aug. 1844.

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    31. [31]

      Clayton, Journal, 17–19 Aug. 1844. In addition to further damaging her relationship with Clayton and other church leaders, these actions potentially violated Illinois law, which stipulated that “the books of account of any deceased person shall be subject to the inspection of all persons interested therein.” (An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, p. 709, sec. 87.)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

      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.

    32. [32]

      In his journal Clayton numbered Emma Smith among those in Nauvoo who opposed the Twelve Apostles and who argued that “there is no church.” Knowledge of this conflict was so widespread that in early September 1844, the Warsaw Signal reported that there was “considerable disaffection on account of the conduct of Emma, in relation to the property belonging to the church” and that rumors abounded that she was going to leave Nauvoo and the church. (Clayton, Journal, 17–19, and 27 Aug. 1844; “Mormon News,” Warsaw [IL] Signal, 4 Sept. 1844, [2]).

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

      Warsaw Signal. Warsaw, IL. 1841–1853.

    33. [33]

      At the time of the dispute, city leaders were facing a crisis over their inability to pay city officers for their service. At a meeting of the city council on 10 August 1844, city marshal John P. Greene noted that “there was no money in the Tresury” to pay their obligations, so the loss of the $1,000 loan was keenly felt by the city. (Clayton, Journal, 8 July 1844; Pay Order, 22 Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; Nauvoo City Council Rough Minute Book, 10 Aug. 1844, 43–45.)

      Clayton, William. Journals, 1842–1845. CHL.

    34. [34]

      Affidavit, 29 Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]. Illinois law allowed creditors and other interested parties to challenge the security bonds issued by the court. In his affidavit, Babbitt represented himself as a creditor to JS’s estate, but there are no known outstanding debts to Babbitt as part of the estate at the time of his affidavit. A week after he swore his affidavit, the Hancock County Probate Court appointed Babbitt the guardian of the minor children of Edward Lawrence, making him responsible for the over $3,000 financial obligation JS had to those children. (An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, p. 705, sec. 74; Introduction to JS Guardian of Maria Lawrence et al., Babbitt Guardian of James Lawrence et al. v. William Law et al., and Maria Lawrence et al. v. Coolidge Administrator of the Estate of JS.)

      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.

    35. [35]

      Citation, 29 Aug. 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].

    36. [36]

      Hancock Co., IL, County Court, Probate Journals, 1839–1923, vol. A, pp. 353–354, 11 Sept. 1844, microfilm 954,481, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. The discrepancy between the over $3,000 obligation to Babbitt as guardian of the minor children of Edward Lawrence and the $2,000 penal sum initially signed by Emma Smith likely provided the rationale for the court to increase the bond to approximately double the amount owed to Babbitt as guardian, as required by law. (Introduction to JS Guardian of Maria Lawrence et al., Babbitt Guardian of James Lawrence et al. v. William Law et al., and Maria Lawrence et al. v. Coolidge Administrator of the Estate of JS; Bond, 17 July 1844 [E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; An Act relative to Wills and Testaments, Executors and Administrators, and the Settlement of Estates [23 Jan. 1829], Public and General Statute Laws of the State of Illinois, p. 703, sec. 64.)

      U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

      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.

    37. [37]

      Hancock Co., IL, County Court, Probate Journals, 1839–1923, vol. A, pp. 354–355, 18 Sept. 1844, microfilm 954,481, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

      U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    38. [38]

      See Introduction to Coolidge Administrator of the Estate of JS.

    39. [39]

      Praecipe, ca. 2 Sept. 1844–A [W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; Subpoena, 3 Sept. 1844 [W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS]; Summons, 3 Sept. 1844 [W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].

    40. [40]

      Docket Entry, Continuance, 22 Oct. 1844 [W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].

    41. [41]

      Motion, ca. 24 Oct. 1844 [W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].

    42. [42]

      Docket Entry, ca. 28 May 1845 [W. & W. Law v. E. Smith Administratrix of the Estate of JS].