Page
Page
Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al., Geauga Co., OH, Court of Common Pleas, circa 16 April 1839
Halsted, Haines & Co. included several members of the Halsted family—William, Matthias, and James Halsted—as well as Richard Haines and Richard Thorne. The firm sold wholesale dry goods in New York City from the 1830s to the 1890s. (Declaration, ca. 17 Dec. 1838 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Williams, New-York Annual Register, 507; Northeastern Reporter, 900–901.)
Williams, Edwin. New-York Annual Register for the Year of Our Lord 1836. Containing an Almanac, Civil and Judicial List; with Political, Statistical and Other Information, respecting the State of New-York and the United States. New York: Edwin Williams, 1836.
The Northeastern Reporter, Volume 31, Containing All the Current Decisions of the Supreme Courts of Massachusetts, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Appellate Court of Indiana, and the Court of Appeals of New York. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1892.
The invoice for this transaction apparently has not survived. However, other invoices from this same buying trip in October 1836 are extant. The debt was also recorded in the books kept by the Ohio law firm Perkins & Osborn, and William Perkins of that firm informed church agent Reuben McBride of the specifics of this debt years later. (See Invoices for New York City Merchandise, 8–15 Oct. 1836, JS Office Papers, CHL; and William Perkins, Statement, 23 July 1867 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. Granger et al.].)
JS Office Papers / Joseph Smith Office Papers, ca. 1835–1845. CHL. MS 21600.
See Historical Introduction to Declaration, 7 May 1838 [JS for the use of J. Granger v. Smalling and Coltrin].
William Perkins, Statement, 23 July 1867 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. Granger et al.]; Historical Introduction to Statement of Account from Perkins & Osborn, ca. 29 Oct. 1838. While both Kirtland-area firms combined their debts in the renegotiation for the debt to the firm of John A. Newbould, Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery was responsible for the debt owed to Holbrook & Ferme, and Cahoon, Carter & Co. was responsible for the debts to Halsted, Haines & Co. and Mead & Betts. (Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–A [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–B [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–C [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Charles Taylor for John A. Newbould to Oliver Granger, Agreement, ca. 2 Aug. 1839, Hiram Kimball, Collection, CHL; JS et al. to Holbrook & Ferme, Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837, copy at CHL; Hyrum Smith et al. to Mead & Betts, Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837, Mead & Betts v. Estate of JS, Illinois State Historical Society, Circuit Court Case Files, CHL.)
Kimball, Hiram. Collection, 1830–1910. CHL.
Smith, Joseph, et al. Promissory Note, Kirtland, OH, to Holbrook & Ferme, 1 Sept. 1837. Photocopy. CHL. MS 20064.
Illinois State Historical Society. Circuit Court Case Files, 1830–1900. Microfilm. CHL. MS 16278.
Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–A [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–B [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–C [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; see also JS et al. to Holbrook & Ferme, Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837, copy at CHL.
Smith, Joseph, et al. Promissory Note, Kirtland, OH, to Holbrook & Ferme, 1 Sept. 1837. Photocopy. CHL. MS 20064.
Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–A [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]. The second note was for $2,323.66 and was due in eighteen months. The third note was for $2,395.37 and was due in two years. (Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–B [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Promissory Note, 1 Sept. 1837–C [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Statement of Account from Perkins & Osborn, ca. 29 Oct. 1838.)
Statement of Account from Perkins & Osborn, ca. 29 Oct. 1838; see also Agreement with Mead & Betts, 2 Aug. 1839. The statement was directed to JS but was likely created for, or at the request of, Oliver Granger, who had become the church’s financial agent in Kirtland and was working to resolve unpaid debts in Ohio and New York beginning in 1838. This statement included the three renegotiated promissory notes given to Halsted, Haines & Co. on 1 September 1837. For more information on Granger’s role as a financial agent for JS and the church, see Letter of Introduction from John Howden, 27 Oct. 1838; and Historical Introduction to Authorization for Oliver Granger, 6 May 1839.
Declaration, ca. 17 Dec. 1838 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]. While this larger amount may have included interest on the promissory note, it was standard legal practice to seek more in damages than the actual amount of the debt. (Swan, Practice in Civil Actions and Proceedings at Law, 1:212–217.)
Swan, Joseph R. The Practice in Civil Actions and Proceedings at Law, in Ohio, and Precedents in Pleading, with Practical Notes; together with the Forms of Process and Clerks’ Entries. 2 vols. Columbus: Isaac N. Whiting, 1845.
Transcript of Proceedings, ca. 16 Apr. 1839 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]. The damages set by Humphrey likely included the interest that had accrued on the note after its September 1838 due date.
Agreement with Mead & Betts, 2 Aug. 1839; Charles Taylor for John A. Newbould to Oliver Granger, Agreement, ca. 2 Aug. 1839, Hiram Kimball, Collection, CHL.
Kimball, Hiram. Collection, 1830–1910. CHL.
Docket Entry, Costs, ca. 16 Apr. 1839 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Notice, 29 May 1841 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Notice, 21 Aug. 1841 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Deed, 24 May 1842 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.]; Deed, 27 May 1842 [Halsted, Haines & Co. v. O. Granger et al.].
Benjamin Elsworth, Palermo, NY, 18 Oct. 1840, Letter to the Editor, Times and Seasons, 15 Nov. 1840, 2:219–220; Memorandum of Deeds, 3 Mar. 1842.
Times and Seasons. Commerce/Nauvoo, IL. Nov. 1839–Feb. 1846.
Application for Bankruptcy, ca. 14–16 Apr. 1842, in JSP, D9:360–372.
JSP, D9 / Smith, Alex D., Christian K. Heimburger, and Christopher James Blythe, eds. Documents, Volume 9: December 1841–April 1842. Vol. 9 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Matthew C. Godfrey, R. Eric Smith, Matthew J. Grow, and Ronald K. Esplin. Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2019.
See Historical Introduction to Application for Bankruptcy, ca. 14–16 Apr. 1842, in JSP, D9:363; Notice to Creditors and Others, 17 June 1842, in JSP, D10:162–164; and “Joseph Smith Documents from May through August 1842,” in JSP, D10:xxiii–xxiv.
JSP, D9 / Smith, Alex D., Christian K. Heimburger, and Christopher James Blythe, eds. Documents, Volume 9: December 1841–April 1842. Vol. 9 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Matthew C. Godfrey, R. Eric Smith, Matthew J. Grow, and Ronald K. Esplin. Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2019.
JSP, D10 / Kuehn, Elizabeth A., Jordan T. Watkins, Matthew C. Godfrey, and Mason K. Allred, eds. Documents, Volume 10: May–August 1842. Vol. 10 of the Documents series of The Joseph Smith Papers, edited by Matthew C. Godfrey, R. Eric Smith, Matthew J. Grow, and Ronald K. Esplin. Salt Lake City: Church Historian’s Press, 2020.
Hancock Co., IL, Probate Records, 1831–1912, Probate Records, 1841–1849, pp. 229, 245, 16 Sept. and 16 Nov. 1848, microfilm 947,494, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.
U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.
Roys & Haines, Collection Notice, 1867, Brigham Young Office, Halsted, Haines & Co. File, 1867, CHL. Franklin D. Richards included a copy of William Perkins’s statement as an enclosure to a letter he wrote to Brigham Young on 27 August 1867. (William Perkins, Statement, 23 July 1867, copy, in Franklin D. Richards, Liverpool, England, to Brigham Young, 27 Aug. 1867, Brigham Young Office Files, CHL.)
Brigham Young Office. Halsted, Haines & Co. File, 1867. Copy of case, Halsted, Haines & Co. v. Granger et al. (Geauga Co. C.P. 1841). CHL.
Brigham Young Office Files, 1832–1878. CHL. CR 1234 1.
Illinois law required that an action for payment of promissory notes and other debts be commenced within sixteen years “after the cause of such action shall have accrued.” However, there was a provision that any payment made on the debt after the sixteen-year limitation would revive the debt. This may have been Roys & Haines’s objective in sending the collection notice: If Young made any payment on the notes, then the firm could proceed legally to collect the debt. (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 [1834–1837], 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.
© 2023 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06