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 > 

Statement of Account from Perkins & Osborn, circa 29 October 1838

Source Note

on behalf of Perkins & Osborn, Statement of Account, , Geauga Co., OH, for JS and others, [ca. 29 Oct. 1838]; handwriting of ; five pages; JS Collection and JS Office Papers, CHL. Includes docket.
Two bifolia measuring 12⅞ × 8 inches (33 × 20 cm), with thirty-nine printed lines per page. One horizontal line and five vertical lines were drawn on the rectos to mirror the format of a financial ledger. The pages were folded for filing. The second verso in the first bifolium contains a docket in the handwriting of : “Perkins & Osburns | Bill | against Joseph Smith”.
The docket indicates the statement was filed with JS’s papers in , Illinois, as early as 1842, with continuous institutional custody thereafter. When filed the pages in JS’s Nauvoo office, the pages were out of order, with the first bifolium, which begins with a statement for JS, placed after the second, which begins with a statement for . The two bifolia were separated during the era when documents were filed by name and subject in the Church Historian’s Office. The first bifolium, containing JS’s and ’s accounts, was placed in the JS Collection. The second bifolium, which begins with an entry for Oliver Cowdery, was placed in the Nauvoo and Pre-Nauvoo Collection; in 2012, the bifolium was cataloged as part of the JS Office Papers.

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    William Clayton served as a recorder and scribe for JS in Nauvoo from 1842 to 1844. (Clayton, Diary, 10 Feb. 1842; Clayton, History of the Nauvoo Temple, 18, 30–31; JS, Journal, 29–30 June 1842.)

    Clayton, William. Diary, Vol. 1, 1840–1842. BYU.

    Clayton, William. History of the Nauvoo Temple, ca. 1845. CHL. MS 3365.

Historical Introduction

Around 29 October 1838, prepared a statement of the accounts that JS and other church members had with Perkins & Osborn, a , Ohio, law partnership comprising Perkins and . Perkins probably prepared the statement on or within a few days of 29 October 1838, when he wrote a letter to JS introducing the statement. Many of the debts listed on the statement resulted from church members’ endeavors beginning in summer 1836 to further develop , Ohio, through buying and selling land, pursuing mercantile ventures, and organizing a bank called the . These efforts were hampered, however, by several factors. The bank was never able to obtain a charter; after operating as an unchartered financial institution, it closed by fall 1837 because of underfunding and intense opposition that led to distrust, bank runs, and litigation. The ambitious plans to expand Kirtland were also hindered by the national financial panic of 1837, which resulted in decreased land values and made it difficult for individuals who had purchased land or goods on credit to pay their debts. In turn, these problems led to litigation by unpaid creditors.
’s October 1838 statement includes three parts. The first part lists the legal fees that JS, , and others owed Perkins & Osborn for representing the men in various lawsuits, including the cases brought against them for issuing notes for the Kirtland Safety Society. Also included in the first section of the statement are promissory notes that JS, Rigdon, , and gave Perkins & Osborn. The statement also indicates that had refused to provide Perkins & Osborn with a promissory note, asserting that JS was responsible for payment. Perkins did not specify the reason for the promissory notes. However, JS, Rigdon, Carter, Cowdery, and Cahoon were involved in mercantile firms in the area and may have owed Perkins & Osborn for helping renegotiate debts in September 1837.
The second section of the statement enumerates the debts, in the form of promissory notes, that the -area mercantile firms and owed to the mercantile firms John A. Newbould, Mead & Betts, Holbrook & Ferme, and Halsted, Haines & Co. The New York merchants had hired Perkins & Osborn to collect the overdue payments or, if necessary, initiate lawsuits to obtain the money owed. The debts enumerated in the second section were the result of a 1 September 1837 arrangement in which Perkins helped the two Kirtland-area firms renegotiate their unpaid debts with the four New York firms. The principals for the debts to three of the firms were , , and . JS and twenty-eight other individuals signed the promissory notes as sureties, promising to pay if the principals did not.
The third section lists other debts was aware of. For example, the section includes lawsuits that merchant brought against Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery and Cahoon, Carter & Co. Neither firm purchased goods from Kelley, but a promissory note the firms created and signed was endorsed by the original recipient and given to Kelley as payment for an unrelated transaction.
According to the amounts listed in this statement, JS personally owed around $196 to Perkins & Osborn, while personally owed $97. Additionally, the two men owed around $2,740 as members of the firm Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery. did not specify a time frame for paying these debts; the purpose of the statement was to inform JS of his and others’ debts and to request payment. The promissory notes given to merchants in September 1837 and due a year later totaled around $4,000. The next set of promissory notes, due in March 1839, amounted to around $4,100. In September 1839, another payment was due, amounting to around $4,230 (not including interest). , acting as an for JS and Rigdon, had already settled several debts stemming from when JS and Rigdon lived in . Granger’s efforts to pay the debts owed to the New York merchants continued into 1839, when a new agreement was reached.
It is not known how the statement, which was enclosed in ’s 29 October letter to JS, was transmitted or when JS received it. Neither Perkins’s letter nor its extant enclosures bear addressing or other postal markings, although a wrapper, no longer extant, may have had such notations. , who was in in October 1838 settling accounts, apparently obtained the letter and statement and kept them while JS was imprisoned from 31 October 1838 to 16 April 1839. JS eventually received the letter and statement, as indicated by a filing docket by .

Footnotes

  1. [1]

    Perkins prepared another undated statement that appears to be an earlier rendering of several of the mercantile debts included in this October 1838 statement. In the other undated statement, Perkins included notes indicating he had written to New York merchants, asking for instructions on their unpaid promissory notes, and was awaiting their reply. In the October 1838 statement featured here, Perkins identified who was in possession of the notes and who should be paid. (Perkins & Osborn, “Demands in Hands of Perkins & Osborn,” between 1 Sept. 1837 and 28 Oct. 1838, JS Office Papers, CHL.)

  2. [2]

    See Letter from William Perkins, 29 Oct. 1838.

  3. [3]

    See Introduction to Part 5: 5 Oct. 1836–10 Apr. 1837.

  4. [4]

    See “Joseph Smith Documents from October 1835 through January 1838”; Introduction to Part 6: 20 Apr.–14 Sept. 1837; and Notes Receivable from Rigdon, Smith & Co., 22 May 1837.

  5. [5]

    Transcript of Proceedings, 24 Oct. 1837, Rounds v. JS (Geauga Co. C.P. 1837), Final Record Book U, pp. 362–364; Transcript of Proceedings, 24 Oct. 1837, Rounds v. Rigdon (Geauga Co. C.P. 1837), Final Record Book U, pp. 359–362, microfilm 20,279, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL.

  6. [6]

    The mercantile firm Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery was a partnership that Sidney Rigdon, JS, and Oliver Cowdery began by June 1836. The mercantile firm Cahoon, Carter & Co., which included Reynolds Cahoon, Jared Carter, and Hyrum Smith, was selling goods by June 1835. The mercantile efforts of Cahoon, Carter, and Smith appear to be related to their endeavor to construct and finance the House of the Lord in Kirtland. (See John A. Newbould, Invoice, Buffalo, NY, for Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery, 17 June 1836; Mead, Stafford & Co., Invoice, New York City, for Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery, 8 Oct. 1836, JS Office Papers, CHL; Advertisement, Northern Times, 2 Oct. 1835, [4]; and Minutes, 6 June 1833.)

    Northern Times. Kirtland, OH. 1835–[1836?].

  7. [7]

    Transcript of Proceedings, 5 June 1837, Kelley v. Rigdon et al. (Geauga Co. C.P. 1837), Final Record Book U, pp. 97–99; Transcript of Proceedings, 5 June 1837, Kelley v. Cahoon et al. (Geauga Co. C.P. 1837), Final Record Book U, pp. 100–101, microfilm 20,279, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL. Promissory notes were transferrable financial instruments. An individual or company could receive a promissory note and then endorse it and transfer it to another individual or company for payment.

    U.S. and Canada Record Collection. FHL.

  8. [8]

    As calculated in this statement, JS personally owed Perkins & Osborn $159.50 for the firm’s services. He was credited $23.01 for money lent and goods purchased, and he was then required to pay Cahoon’s note for $51.34. With these additions plus a year of interest, JS’s costs amounted to around $191.00. JS also likely paid the retainer fee of $5.00 for a lawsuit Timothy Martindale initiated.

  9. [9]

    The debts JS and Rigdon owed jointly in connection with the mercantile firm Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery were for the judgment and damages in the Kelley lawsuit, totaling $2,083.47, and for a promissory note given to John Ayer for $442.12, which totaled $506.49 after twenty-five months of simple interest at 7 percent.

  10. [10]

    See Letter from William Perkins, 29 Oct. 1838.

  11. [11]

    Amounts were not recorded for the promissory notes given to John A. Newbould, due eighteen months and twenty-four months after September 1837.

  12. [12]

    See Letter of Introduction from John Howden, 27 Oct. 1838.

  13. [13]

    See Agreement with Mead & Betts, 2 Aug. 1839.

  14. [14]

    See Historical Introduction to Letter of Introduction from John Howden, 27 Oct. 1838.

Page [5]

1837 To Perkins & Osborn Dr
July 14 To your note of this date on demd & Int— $51 34
Interest on the same
1837 To Perkins & Osborn Dr
Sept 11 To your note of this date on demd & Int $51 34
Interest on the same
refuses to give us his note says it ought to be pd by Mr S[mith]
Mr Smith will recollect that we were to have s note for same amount of same date, & the understanding was if he would not give it Mr Smith would give his. it is s proportion of the Com[mission]s on extending Credit & taking notes for the largr debts so we state his acct
1837 To Perkins & Osborn Dr
Sept 11 To amt of Coms [Commissions] &c $51 34
Interest on the same from date—
 
Statement of demands in our hands for collection
Jos Smith Jr & 31 others notes to Halsted & Hain[e]s dated Sept 1. 1837
1 at one year from date for $2251.77
1 at 18 mo " " " 2323.66
1 at 24 mo " " " 2395.37
Interest from time they fall due
To Mead & Betts same date
1 at one year —— for —— $1177.20
1 " 18 mo —— " —— 1213.87
1 " 24 mo —— " —— 1251.54
Interest from time they fall due
[p. [5]]
View entire transcript

|

Cite this page

Source Note

Document Transcript

Page [5]

Document Information

Related Case Documents
Editorial Title
Statement of Account from Perkins & Osborn, circa 29 October 1838
ID #
9617
Total Pages
8
Print Volume Location
JSP, D6:252–261
Handwriting on This Page
  • William Perkins

Footnotes

  1. [22]

    TEXT: This text was written vertically on the left side of the page.

  2. [23]

    The extant promissory notes for Halsted, Haines & Co. have thirty-three signatures, including JS’s. (See Hyrum Smith et al., Promissory Note, Kirtland, OH, to Halsted, Haines & Co., 1 Sept. 1837, photocopy, CHL.)

  3. [24]

    The mercantile firm Halsted, Haines & Co. included several members of the Halsted family—William Halsted, Matthias Halsted, 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. (Transcript of Proceedings, 16 Apr. 1839, Halsted, Haines & Co. v. JS et al. [Geauga Co. C.P. 1839], Final Record Book W, pp. 384–386, microfilm 20,280, U.S. and Canada Record Collection, FHL; 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.

  4. [25]

    The mercantile firm Mead & Betts consisted of Francis Betts and Matthew Mead. They sold wholesale dry goods in Buffalo, New York, in 1836. Granger made an agreement with the firm to resolve outstanding debts in August 1839. (Directory for the City of Buffalo [1836], 45, 109; Mead & Betts, Invoice, Buffalo, NY, for Cahoon, Carter & Co., 18 June 1836, JS Office Papers, CHL; Agreement with Mead & Betts, 2 Aug. 1839.)

    A Directory for the City of Buffalo; Containing the Names and Residence of the Heads of Families and Householders, in Said City, on the First of May, 1836. Buffalo, NY: L. P. Crary, 1836.

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