Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.], Page 448
The Papers
Browse the PapersDocumentsJournalsAdministrative RecordsRevelations and TranslationsHistoriesLegal RecordsFinancial RecordsOther Contemporary Papers
Reference
PeoplePlacesEventsGlossaryLegal GlossaryFinancial GlossaryCalendar of DocumentsWorks CitedFeatured TopicsLesson PlansRelated Publications
Media
VideosPhotographsIllustrationsChartsMapsPodcasts
News
Current NewsArchiveNewsletterSubscribeJSP Conferences
About
About the ProjectJoseph Smith and His PapersFAQAwardsEndorsementsReviewsEditorial MethodNote on TranscriptionsNote on Images of People and PlacesReferencing the ProjectCiting This WebsiteProject TeamContact Us
Published Volumes
  1. Home > 
  2. The Papers > 
Introduction to Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al. Bond from Erie Rhodes, 16 September 1841 Promissory Note to Erie Rhodes, 16 September 1841–C Assignment to JS as Trustee-in-Trust, between 2 and 18 April 1842 Assignment to William Clayton, 1 June 1843 Praecipe, 25 July 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Praecipe, 25 July 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Bill in Chancery, circa 31 July 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Bill in Chancery, circa 31 July 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Summons, 1 August 1843–A [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Summons, 1 August 1843–A, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Summons, 1 August 1843–B [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, 11 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, 11 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Docket Entry, Motion, 16 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, 17 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, 17 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Docket Entry, Motions, 18 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Docket Entry, Answer Filed, 20 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Decree, 21 October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Decree, 21 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Case File Wrapper, circa October 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Receipt, 20 January 1844 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Transcript of Proceedings, between 21 October 1843 and 6 February 1844 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Fee Bill, 7 May 1844 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.]

Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.]

Source Note

JS, Answer, before , [], Hancock Co., IL, [between 29 Sept. and 4 Oct. 1843], Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al. (Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court, in Chancery, 1843). Featured version copied [between 21 Oct. 1843 and 6 Feb. 1844] in Transcript of Proceedings, Hancock County Circuit Court, Chancery Court Records, 1838–1924, vol. B, p. 448; handwriting of ; Hancock County Courthouse, Carthage, IL; microfilm at FHL.
The document is in a bound volume measuring 17¼ × 11¾ × 2⅜ inches (44 × 30 × 6 cm). The volume contains 237 leaves (474 pages) and endpapers. The inscribed pages were paginated 1–468 in unidentified handwriting; the final inscribed page is unpaginated. The volume contains copies of court records inscribed between 14 May 1842 and 6 February 1844. It was rebound in the mid- to late twentieth century with canvas-covered boards, with “CHANCERY RECORD | B | HANCOCK COUNTY” stamped in black ink on the spine.
The volume has remained in the continuous custody of the Hancock County, Illinois, circuit court clerk since its creation.

Historical Introduction

In fall 1843, JS submitted an answer to the , Illinois, court regarding a lawsuit over the ownership of some of his property. Two years earlier, in September 1841, Erie Rhodes had sold JS 153.5 acres of land about four miles east of , Illinois, for $1,535 and signed a bond promising to provide JS with a property deed when he completed his payments. This property ultimately became JS’s personal . Rhodes died on 17 October 1841, one month after JS’s purchase. JS continued to make regular property payments to Rhodes’s estate and fulfilled the debt in April 1842. However, because neither Rhodes nor his estate had completed payments on the land, the estate did not yet own the land and was unable to transfer title to JS. Sometime in early April 1842, shortly after he finished paying for the land, JS signed an assignment that transferred the property to himself as trustee-in-trust for the . Although signed in 1842, the transfer was dated October 1841.
In October 1842, Rhodes’s widow—Eunice Wright Rhodes—petitioned the Hancock County Chancery Court for her dower rights to her husband’s property, including the land he sold to JS. The following spring, a court-appointed commission set apart a third of Erie Rhodes’s property as Eunice Rhodes’s dower right, and the court approved the arrangement on 27 May 1843. Although the property assigned to Eunice Rhodes did not include JS’s , the inclusion of his property in her petition apparently led JS to make additional efforts to secure the title to his land. On 1 June 1843, JS signed a second assignment, which transferred the property from JS as the church’s trustee-in-trust to . Like the earlier assignment, the conveyance to Clayton was dated October 1841. Although JS’s conveyance stated that Clayton paid $1,500 for the property, it is unknown whether any money changed hands. However, Clayton apparently held the property as an on JS’s behalf rather than as his personal property. Clayton regularly conducted financial business as an agent for JS, typically doing so in JS’s name but not usually holding property on JS’s behalf. In fact, while the fall 1843 court proceedings were ongoing, JS instructed Clayton to purchase additional property from the Rhodes estate on his behalf.
In late July 1843, and his attorneys prepared a bill of complaint for the Hancock County Chancery Court to settle the transaction. Clayton’s complaint requested that the court deny Eunice Rhodes’s dower rights for the property that was sold to JS and require the Rhodes estate to provide Clayton with a deed since JS fulfilled his part of the bond and paid for the land and then transferred the land to Clayton. To ensure that all claims were resolved, Clayton named Eunice Rhodes, her children, the Erie Rhodes estate, and JS as defendants in the complaint, even though Clayton was apparently acting on JS’s behalf to resolve the matter. On 1 August 1843, the chancery court summoned the defendants, including JS, to appear before the court during its October term and answer Clayton’s complaint.
While the court case was pending, transferred the property in question back to JS’s family twice. On 1 August, Clayton delivered a deed to the to JS’s wife while in JS’s presence. However, for unknown reasons, this deed was never recorded and was apparently nullified. Sometime between 28 August and 25 November 1843, Clayton transferred the same property to JS’s and Emma’s children.
The chain of ownership and the legal proceedings surrounding this property are complex, and there are several important contexts for JS’s actions. First, JS’s ongoing bankruptcy proceedings likely influenced his approach to these transactions. In spring 1843, JS’s bankruptcy proceedings, which began the previous year, apparently progressed, and at least some assets were seized to pay his creditors. It is possible JS believed that transferring the property to and having Clayton sue for title and then transfer the property to JS’s family would further protect the property from JS’s creditors. Additionally, increased tension between JS and over plural marriage led JS to transfer property to Emma and their children in July, and this August transfer was possibly prompted by similar tensions. Finally, fears about his own safety following the third attempt to extradite him to may have convinced JS that he needed to set aside property for his family in the event of his imprisonment or death. These various factors may explain the complexity surrounding this property, its ownership, and the resulting legal proceedings.
Sometime between 29 September and 4 October, JS prepared his answer to ’s complaint for the court. Although the answer is dated 29 September 1843, JS’s journal states that on the morning of 4 October, he “was sworn before alderman at the to an affidavit” regarding Clayton’s suit. This suggests either that the answer was created on 4 October and backdated to 29 September or that it was prepared on 29 September and signed on 4 October. In the answer, JS acknowledged all the facts in the complaint, namely that Erie Rhodes executed the bond in his lifetime, that JS paid off the debt, and that the “several endorsements and assignments” inscribed on the bond were correct. JS signed the answer. Phelps, acting as a city alderman pro tempore, certified and signed the document.
The Hancock County Chancery Court received JS’s answer on 12 October 1843. Hugh Rhodes—the administrator of Erie Rhodes’s estate—and John W. Marsh—the guardian of Erie Rhodes’s minor children—also provided answers to the court in October 1843 that reflected favorably on ’s petition. Eunice Rhodes and her oldest son never responded to the summons. On 21 October 1843, the chancery court granted Clayton’s petition, barring Eunice Rhodes’s dower rights to the property and ordering Erie Rhodes’s estate to give Clayton title to the land within sixty days.
The subsequent events leading to receiving title to the land are somewhat obscured in contemporaneous records. In early November, Clayton corresponded with Hugh Rhodes and sent him a blank deed. Clayton presumably intended Rhodes to use it to make out a deed to Clayton, though it is unclear whether this was for the court-ordered transfer or for the additional land Clayton purchased in early October on behalf of JS. Finally, on 20 November 1843, Hugh Rhodes signed a provisional deed that legally promised to transfer the property to Clayton once the estate fully paid off its debt on the land.
, a deputy clerk of the court, copied JS’s original answer into a Hancock County Chancery Court record book sometime between 21 October 1843, when the October court term ended, and 6 February 1844, when the court record was certified as correct. The county’s recorded copy of the answer is featured here, though the original answer has since been located.
See also Introduction to Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Erie Rhodes to JS, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, 16 Sept. 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.

  2. [2]

    Hancock Co., IL, Probate Records, 1831–1912, Wills and Testaments, 1833–1843, pp. 302–303, microfilm 959,566, item 1, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  3. [3]

    Erie Rhodes to JS, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, 16 Sept. 1841, Hancock Co., IL, Probate and Court Records, ca. 1850–1963, item 3, Misc. Court Records, [182?]–[184?], p. [2], microfilm 4,661,986, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  4. [4]

    Rhodes bought the property in 1840 from James M. Duncan. However, as of 1842, Rhodes and his estate had yet to make a single payment on the property. (“A Full and Perfect Inventory of the Lands Claimed by the Estate of Erie Rhodes,” 1 Jan. 1842, Hancock Co., IL, Probate Records, ca. 1831–1942, box 10, microfilm 1,491,980, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.)

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  5. [5]

    Although the conveyance, which was written on the back of the original bond, was dated 10 October 1841, the text was inserted in the space between a contemporaneous docket and a 2 April 1842 notation stating that the bond was paid in full. The end of the inserted conveyance text wraps around the notation text. The conveyance was included with the bond when it was copied into the official Hancock County Bonds and Mortgages record book on 18 April 1842. This indicates that the conveyance was created sometime between 2 and 18 April 1842. This timing suggests that the conveyance was likely intended to protect the property from creditors in connection with JS’s petition for bankruptcy, which was created during the same two-week window. Conveying property to dependents or trusts was a common means of shielding property in bankruptcy proceedings that followed the Bankruptcy Act of 1841. (Erie Rhodes to JS, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, 16 Sept. 1841, Hancock Co., IL, Probate and Court Records, ca. 1850–1963, item 3, Misc. Court Records, [182?]–[184?], p. [2], microfilm 4,661,986; Erie Rhodes to JS, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, 16 Sept. 1841, Hancock Co., IL, Bonds and Mortgages, 1840–1904, vol. 1, pp. 228–229, microfilm 954,776, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; Application for Bankruptcy, ca. 14–16 Apr. 1842; Balleisen, Navigating Failure, 94–96.)

    Balleisen, Edward J. Navigating Failure: Bankruptcy and Commercial Society in Antebellum America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001.

  6. [6]

    Hancock Co., IL, Chancery Court Records, 1838–1924, vol. B, pp. 144–148, 15 Oct. 1842; pp. 334–336, 27 May 1843, microfilm 955,133, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. A chancery court, sometimes called a court of equity, “has jurisdiction in cases where a plain, adequate and complete remedy cannot be had at law. . . . It will prevent a party from improperly setting up, at a trial, some title or claim, which would be inequitable. . . . It will perpetuate the testimony of witnesses to rights and titles, which are in danger of being lost before the matter can be tried.” (“Chancery,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 1:253.)

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

    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.

  7. [7]

    See JS, Journal, 1 June 1843; Erie Rhodes to JS, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, 16 Sept. 1841, Hancock Co., IL, Probate and Court Records, ca. 1850–1963, item 3, Misc. Court Records, [182?]–[184?], p. [2], microfilm 4,661,986, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  8. [8]

    Erie Rhodes to JS, Bond, Hancock Co., IL, 16 Sept. 1841, Hancock Co., IL, Probate and Court Records, ca. 1850–1963, item 3, Misc. Court Records, [182?]–[184?], p. [2], microfilm 4,661,986, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  9. [9]

    See, for example, Historical Introduction to Land Transaction with Chauncey Robison, 22 Oct. 1842.

  10. [10]

    On 10 October 1843, while the chancery court proceedings were ongoing, Clayton apparently met with JS, one of JS’s attorneys, and representatives from the Rhodes estate. During these meetings, JS appointed Clayton to buy additional lands from the Rhodes estate in his own name on JS’s behalf. Two days later, Clayton attended a public auction and purchased nearly four hundred acres of land adjoining JS’s farm from Erie Rhodes’s estate on behalf of JS. Although the property was purchased in Clayton’s name, JS cosigned the accompanying note with Clayton promising to pay $1,450 to the Rhodes estate. (Clayton, Journal, 10 and 12 Oct. 1843; Hugh Rhodes to William Clayton, Deed, Hancock Co., IL, 12 Oct. 1843, Hancock Co., IL, Deed Records, 1817–1917, vol. M, pp. 83–85, microfilm 954,600, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; William Clayton and JS to Hugh Rhodes, Promissory Note, [Nauvoo, IL], 12 Oct. 1843, JS Collection, CHL.)

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

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  11. [11]

    Hancock Co., IL, Chancery Court Records, 1838–1924, vol. B, pp. 444–447, 21 Oct. 1843, microfilm 955,133, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  12. [12]

    Clayton, Journal, 1 Aug. 1843.

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

  13. [13]

    Although dated 28 August 1843, the deed was not signed and certified until 25 November, suggesting that it was possibly drafted as early as 28 August but not formalized until 25 November—after Clayton received a provisional deed for the land from the Rhodes estate. (William Clayton to Julia M. Smith et al., Deed, Hancock Co., IL, 28 Aug. 1843, Hancock Co., IL, Deed Records, 1817–1917, vol. M, pp. 82–83, microfilm 954,600, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.)

  14. [14]

    Historical Introduction to Letter from Horace Hotchkiss, 7 Apr. 1843; Historical Introduction to Bond from Smith Tuttle and John Gillet, 7 July 1843; Joel Catlin to Hiram Kimball, Receipt, [Hancock Co., IL], 19 July 1843, in Mormon File, ca. 1805–1995, Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

    Mormon File, ca. 1805–1995. The Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

  15. [15]

    JS previously deeded property to his children in 1842, prior to declaring bankruptcy, to secure those properties from seizure. In the 1850s, United States attorney Archibald Williams alleged that JS tried to hide his ownership of the farm “for the fraudulent purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding” his creditors. (Deed to Julia M. Smith and Others, 17 Mar. 1842; Transcript of Proceedings, Springfield, IL, ca. 17 July 1852, United States v. Joseph Smith III et al. [C.C.D. Ill. 1852], Complete Records, 4:497.)

  16. [16]

    On 12 July 1843, the same day he dictated his revelation on plural marriage, JS instructed Clayton to “Deed all the unincumbered lots to E. [Emma] & the children,” and Clayton made out a deed for sixty-eight city lots in Nauvoo. (Revelation, 12 July 1843 [D&C 132]; Clayton, Journal, 12 July 1843; Historical Introduction to Deed to Emma Smith and Others, 12 July 1843.)

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

  17. [17]

    During the contentious estate proceedings following JS’s death, Emma Smith connected the transfer to the threats JS faced, stating that his life “was in great danger” at the time. Emma Smith and her children claimed that the church paid Clayton to transfer the lands to JS’s children so that they would have some means of support aside from “the charities of said Mormon community” in the event of JS’s murder. However, there is no evidence that the church paid Clayton for the land. (Transcript of Proceedings, Springfield, IL, ca. 17 July 1852, United States v. Joseph Smith III et al. [C.C.D. Ill. 1852], Complete Records, 4:516–517, underlining in original.)

  18. [18]

    JS, Journal, 4 Oct. 1843.

  19. [19]

    Hancock Co., IL, Chancery Court Records, 1838–1924, vol. B, p. 448, 21 Oct. 1843, microfilm 955,133, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  20. [20]

    Hancock Co., IL, Chancery Court Records, 1838–1924, vol. B, pp. 447–451, 21 Oct. 1843, microfilm 955,133, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  21. [21]

    Clayton, Journal, 7–8 Nov. 1843.

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

  22. [22]

    Hugh Rhodes to William Clayton, Deed, Knox Co., IL, 20 Nov. 1843, Hancock Co., IL, Deed Records, 1817–1917, vol. M, pp. 80–82, microfilm 954,600, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. According to probate records, Erie Rhodes’s estate was still making payments on the properties sold to JS as late as 1845. ([Hugh Rhodes], “This Accountant Claims the Following Credits for Disbursments since Dec 4th 1843,” 3 May 1845; Hugh Rhodes, “This Accountant Claims the Following Credits for Disbursments,” 11 Feb. 1846, Hancock Co., IL, Probate Records, ca. 1831–1942, box 10, microfilm 1,491,980, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.)

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  23. [23]

    See Patty Bartlett Sessions, Affidavit, [Carthage], IL, 20 Oct. 1843, Hancock Co., IL, Circuit Court, Civil and Criminal Files, 1830–1860, box 20, microfilm 1,521,365, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. On 6 February 1844, Onias Skinner, the master in chancery for Hancock County, certified that he had reviewed the chancery court record book for the October 1843 term. This indicates that the court’s record for the October term, including JS’s answer to Clayton’s bill of complaint, was recorded by that date. (Hancock Co., IL, Chancery Court Records, 1838–1924, vol. B, p. 469, 6 Feb. 1844, microfilm 955,133, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.)

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  24. [24]

    Answer, between 29 Sept. and 4 Oct. 1843 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.].

Asterisk (*) denotes a "featured" version, which includes an introduction and annotation. Transcript of Proceedings, between 21 October 1843 and 6 February 1844 [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.] Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843 [ Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al. ]
Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843, Copy [ Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al. ]
Transcript of Proceedings, between 21 October 1843 and 6 February 1844 [ Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al. ]

Page 448

Answer,
State of Illinois) ss.
)
Circuit Court
The separate answer of Joseph Smith one of the defendants to the Bill of Complainant— The said Joseph Smith now comes and for answer to the Bill of the said says that, it is true he duly assigned the Bond from Erie Rhodes to him mentioned in s bill to the as alleged in s bill and it is true that the payments for the land in said bond described were made in full for said land as alleged in s Bill and as set forth and endorsed on the said bond, the last payment being made in full to one H J Rhodes an for one Hugh Rhodes as endorsed on said Bond— That the said Bond was executed by the said Erie Rhodes in his lifetime and that the several endorsements and assignments on said Bond are correct as deponent verily believes. And now having answered the bill of the said Joseph Smith prays to be hence dismissed with his Costs &c
The
I Joseph Smith being duly sworn say that the several matters and things set forth in the foregoing answer as of my own knowledge are true— and that the other several matters and things therein set forth as from the information of others and belief I believe to be true
Joseph Smith
Sworn to and subscribed before me
29th day of September 1843.
acting Justice of the Peace [p. 448]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Page 448

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Answer, between 29 September and 4 October 1843, Copy [Clayton v. E. W. Rhodes et al.]
ID #
4145
Total Pages
1
Print Volume Location
JSP, D13:146–151
Handwriting on This Page
  • David E. Head

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    TEXT: Written in left margin.

  2. [2]

    An abbreviation for the Latin scilicet, meaning “namely” or “to wit.” (“Scilicet,” in Bouvier, Law Dictionary, 2:379.)

    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.

  3. [3]

    Phelps was not a regularly elected justice of the peace. In June 1843, the Nauvoo City Council elected him to serve as a city alderman pro tempore in the place of Orson Spencer. He later served in the place of alderman George A. Smith in September and October 1843. According to the act to incorporate Nauvoo, city aldermen held “all the powers of Justices of the Peace.” (Nauvoo City Council Minute Book, 1 and 10 June 1843, 180; “The Attendance of the City Council of the City of Nauvoo, Commencing August. 12th 1843,” Nauvoo, IL, Records, CHL; Act to Incorporate the City of Nauvoo, 16 Dec. 1840.)

    Nauvoo, IL. Records, 1841–1845. CHL. MS 16800.

© 2024 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of UseUpdated 2021-04-13Privacy NoticeUpdated 2021-04-06Cookie Preferences

Source Note

Document Transcript