Family History Writing Challenge Day 28

Today is the final day of the Family History Writing Challenge, so it seems appropriate to do a recap about the life of John Murdoch. I titled this series John J. Murdoch: The Man Behind the Myth" because several misconceptions follow him to this day. Among the most prevalent are the following:

- "John Murdoch was a General in the Civil War."
 Murdoch never served in the military in any capacity.

- "Farm property was acquired by General John Murdoch in 1778 when the large Spanish colonial grants were being broken up."
Murdoch wasn't born until 1814, and he didn't move to St. Louis until 1838.

- "John Murdoch named his farm Shrewsbury Park after a place of the same name in England."
Murdoch's property was called Murdoch Farm. Farrar & Tate, who developed the land in the 1890's long after Murdoch's death, named it Shrewsbury Park after a town in England.

- "By 1890 Gregorie Sarpy's land was divided into farms. One of these farms was owned by John Murdoch."
Murdoch bought his farm land in the 1850's, and there were other farmers in the area at that time. He died in 1880.

At first glance, it might not seem as though John Murdoch left much of a legacy behind after he died, especially since it appears that he had no surviving heirs. But I would beg to differ. It is pretty remarkable that a twenty-four year old man would leave his mom, dad, and siblings behind to travel nearly 1,000 miles to a place that was still pretty much a frontier town. Yet that is what John Murdoch did in 1838. He developed the successful firm of Murdoch & Dickson, expanded into other business endeavors with his partner, Charles K. Dickson, and built a life that included marrying Dickson's niece and starting a family. The two families were so close in life that in death they are all buried in the same plot. Many parts of St. Louis history were touched by the two men, including subdivisions, banks, insurance companies, railroads, Eads Bridge, and the Mercantile Library.

When he established Murdoch Farm in "the country" following his marriage in 1855, he must have felt like he was living the American dream. For the first time, he owned a home and the surrounding land (lots of it). The farm was a microcosm of America at the time, with servants and slaves to keep the farm functional. And yet Murdoch freed his slaves before the Civil War ended, and set them up with land and the means to sustain it.

But as sometimes happens, Murdoch's dream turned into a nightmare. Whether through poor management, bad real estate investments, a declining economy - or maybe a combination of all those things - John Murdoch forfeited the business when his friend and partner, Charles Dickson, died. And then he lost his home and farm, literally on the court house steps. For all intents and purposes, he was destitute when he died in 1880, leaving his wife Julia to continue raising their six children on her own.

Murdoch Farm, however, took on a life of its own. The property which once provided solace to a single family began to offer city dwellers an opportunity to live in a country environment filled with fresh, clean air, quiet streets, local dairy products and produce. It presented a sanctuary for German immigrants seeking a place to worship in their native tongue. A building once home to the sounds of the Murdoch family was occupied with voices raised in prayer. From its start as Shrewsbury Park in the late 1890s, home to a few dozen families, the community of Shrewsbury is now filled with many churches, schools, businesses and over 6,000 residents. John Murdoch, as a businessman engaged in many real estate transactions, would be impressed with the development that has occurred on the land he once cultivated. There may no longer be any crops, but a strong sense of community has grown in the area.

I'll leave you with the poem written about Shrewsbury Park in 1890. I think John Murdoch would have appreciated the sentiment.

Shrewsbury Poem

Family History Writing Challenge Day 25

John Priest's Death

When John Murdoch appointed John G. Priest to take over as administrator of the estate of Murdoch & Dickson following the death of his partner, Charles K. Dickson, in 1871, he probably never imagined the problems the assignment would cause for the next twenty plus years. John Priest died on July 4, 1900, and The St. Louis Republic newspaper on July 10, 1900 wrote an article that proclaimed "More Litigation Now in Prospect. J.G. Priest's Death Probably Will Cause New Proceedings in Murdoch and Dickson Case." The headline went on to read "It Was in His Charge for More Than Twenty Years-Many Suits Filed, but Settlement Not Reached." The estate of Murdoch and Dickson had $5,000 remaining in its accounts, and numerous plaintiffs, including the heirs of Charles K. Dickson, had filed suit to get the money released.

March 17, 1901, The St. Louis Republic reported that three lawsuits had been filed in connection with the administration of the Murdoch & Dickson estate. The article reiterated that this estate had been in litigation since the death of Charles Dickson in 1871. The new administrator of the estate, William C. Richardson, brought the suits against the Terminal Railway Association, the Mississippi Valley Trust Company and T. S. Evans and the Vornbrook Furniture Company. The suits all stemmed back to property that had been sold by the then-administrator of the estate, John Priest. The Richardson claimed that Murdoch had no authority to appoint Priest back in 1871, and therefore the  property transactions handled by Priest should be declared null and void. Two more lawsuits followed in May of 1901.

March 17, 1901

May 19, 1901

The case regarding the legitimacy of John Murdoch appointing John Priest as administrator of the estate, which impacted the above referenced lawsuits as well as others, began in the St. Louis Circuit Court on October 5, 1905. The case was appealed and went to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1914, where it was ruled that Murdoch had inappropriately assigned Priest to handle the estate.

October 6, 1905

The estate of John Priest, in the meantime, was having legal issues of its own. Following Priest's death, the Mississippi Valley Trust Company, as trustee for Sophia M. Capitain, Manette Capitain, Ringrose J. Capitain, Isabella Capitain and Chouteau Capitain filed suit against Ella B. Priest, Administratrix of the estate of John G. Priest, deceased, Auguste L. Priest, Warren G. Priest, John G. Priest, Jr., Virginia C. Priest, Annie Priest, Mark Priest, Chouteau Priest, Maude Priest and Ella B. Priest. John G. Priest was appointed trustee for the Capitains for the trust of Ringrose J. Watson, which was dated October 6, 1869. When Priest was removed as trustee in October of 1899, he was ordered to pay over to the new trustee the trust funds remaining in the estate. It was alleged that Priest received large sums of money belonging to the estate, but that he had not provided an accounting to the trust. He also did not turn over the funds as required upon his removal as trustee. The Court on January 27, 1902, ordered Ella Priest to pay the Capitains $5,100 plus six percent interest.

The allegations in the Capitain lawsuit sound suspiciously like John Priest's dealings with the Murdoch & Dickson estate.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 21

The estate of Charles K. Dickson was settled in 1890, and James Eads and Barton Bates were discharged as executors of the estate. The final settlement indicated that they were owed over $46,000, and there is nothing showing that they were ever paid for their services. The estate of Murdoch & Dickson was still open as of 1914, forty-three years following the death of Dickson, which necessitated the dissolution of the firm.

Isaiah Williamson

But what happened to Murdoch Farm, the 226-acre property that John Murdoch lost on the courthouse steps in 1878 due to his inability to pay the loan he took out against the property? Isaiah Williamson bought the farm at auction on Wednesday, May 22, 1878 for $23,000. Williamson, the man to whom Murdoch owed the money on the loan, was a Philadelphia businessman who began investing his money in real estate and promising enterprises. By 1880 he was one of the wealthiest men in Philadelphia. Perhaps that is why he could hold onto property in the St. Louis area for the amount of time that he did. It is possible that he hired people to farm the lands in the meantime. Because it wasn't until April 2, 1888 - nearly ten years after he bought the farm - that he sold 222 and 577/1000 acres of the property to James S. Farrar through a Deed of Record at a price of $66,000. The remaining acres were exempt, with three acres going to the St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co., and 1/2 acre going to a Mrs. Bluitt because Murdoch had given the land to her. (It would be interesting to know if she was once one of the slaves that he owned.)

On that same day, a Deed of Trust indicates that James S. Farrar sold the property to Charles T. Farrar and James T. Blair as parties of the second part, with Isaiah Williamson as party of the third part. James S. Farrar was for a number of years a judge in the St. Louis County court system. In 1875 he then went into business with Charles T. Farrar, forming Farrar & Co. The business specialized in buying and selling real estate, collecting rents, and negotiating loans secured by real property.

Charles T. Farrar had big plans for the old Murdoch Farm.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 20

St. Louis City Hall 1885

John Murdoch and Charles Dickson were both deceased but the estate of their firm, Murdoch & Dickson, was far from settled. Murdoch had executed a deed on October 14, 1873, by which he conveyed to John Priest as assignee all of his own property as well as the property of Murdoch & Dickson for the benefit of the creditors following the death of Dickson earlier that year. Priest took possession of certain assets of Murdoch & Dickson on November 29, 1873. But he made no report, as assignee, until November 23, 1880. He had heard proof of claims, and claims to an amount in excess of $117,000 were proven against the estate. Assets of the alleged value of $40,000 came into the hands of Priest as assignee under the deed.

On December 15, 1888, Priest filed a petition in the circuit court of St. Louis for his final discharge, in which he admitted being in possession of $2,911.48. Exceptions to the report were filed by a creditor, and a lawsuit was filed. It was referred, and the referee reported that there was $9,782.58 in the hands of the assignee which should be distributed among creditors. The assignee excepted to this report, the St. Louis circuit court overruled these exceptions, and an appeal went to the appellate court. The appellate court resulted in a finding that there was $9, 632.58 in the hands of Priest, and mandated that the circuit court enter judgement against him for that sum.

Unfortunately, that was not the only lawsuit that had been filed against the estate. John Priest had filed suit around 1874 in the circuit court of St. Louis County against James B. Eads and Barton Bates as devisees of Charles K. Dickson (and executors of his will as well), to divest of them the title to all property held in trust by them under the last will of Charles K. Dickson which Murdoch and Dickson had owned jointly as partners. Dickson had a large quantity of real estate held in trust for his wife and children in accordance with the provisions of his will. The jointly held property would then be vested to Priest as the assignee of the partnership estate. Eads and Bates, as trustees under the last will and testament of Charles K. Dickson, responded by filing suit against John G. Priest, assignee of Murdoch & Dickson, and John J. Murdoch on the grounds that the suit by Priest did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and that the deed of assignment made by Murdoch to Priest was on its face absolutely void and of no force against the interest of Dickson in said firm of Murdoch & Dickson.

The lawsuits against the estate of Murdoch & Dickson were further complicated by the fact that no one was appointed to succeed Priest as administrator after he stepped down in 1888. No one was protecting the interests of the creditors or other plaintiffs in the suits. In 1895, the widow and children of Charles Dickson filed a petition in the probate court "In the manner of Murdoch & Dickson", praying that William C. Richardson, as Public Administrator of the City of St. Louis, take charge of the estate. On August 11, 1895, Richardson was ordered to take charge and custody of all the remaining estate of the late firm. When he left office, his successor Harry Troll was appointed administrator of the firm's estate. Troll continued to appear before the court in cases brought against the estate of Murdoch & Dickson until at least 1914.

In one particular case that was bought over a property dispute, the appellate court ruled that John Murdoch had no authority to make the assignment dated September 14, 1873 to Priest as assignee for the benefits of the firm’s creditors. This would no doubt have impacted any other lawsuits that were brought concerning issues at the time Priest was assignee from 1873 to 1888. Further, the court concluded the following:

“No fair-minded, disinterested court can read this record without coming to the conclusion that the affairs of this estate have been very poorly managed and administered, if not fraudulently, and especially by Priest. His dereliction of duty and dilatory methods, taken in connection with his poor and extremely unsatisfactory system of bookkeeping, if we may so dignify it by calling it bookkeeping, and his failure to collect and charge himself with all of the partnership assets, which the record discloses he had knowledge of, or was possessed by the means by which he could have known of their existence, and could have collected and charged himself with them had he discharged his duty in following up that information and knowledge.”

It appears that many of the litigants, creditors and heirs of the estate were long dead before things came to a resolution. One can only imagine what happened to the relationship between the Murdoch and Dickson families as these lawsuits were filed. Could the families who were once so close - Julia Murdoch was Charles Dickson's niece, and the Dicksons named one of their sons John Murdoch Dickson - survive the courtroom battles? It seemed they could, as the families who spent so much time together on earth are spending eternity together in the same burial plot.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 17

Having lost his house and farm on a loan default, John Murdoch was faced with the task of moving his family out of the only home they had ever known. John was 65 and Julia was 44 when they relocated to 201 S. 16th Street in the City of St. Louis. Their children were all still living with them at the time, and were the following ages: John-20, Mary-18, Emma-16, George-14, William-11, and Joseph-9. This new residence would have been a few blocks from the Union Depot building and approximately one and a half miles from his employment at O.J. Lewis & Co.

1880 map

Murdoch became ill in the spring of 1880. Following a bronchial infection lasting thirteen weeks, at 3:10 a.m. on June 17th, John Murdoch died at home. He was 65 years, 10 months and 7 days old at the time of his death. The June 18th issue of the Globe Democrat reported that "the funeral would take place Sunday, June 20, at 2 p.m., from his late residence, 201 S. Sixteenth St., to St. John's Church, Sixteenth and Chestnut, from thence to Calvary Cemetery. Friends of the family are respectfully invited to attend."

An obituary in the June 19th Globe Democrat told quite a story about John Murdoch, and the "Death of an Old and Honored Business Man."

    Another old and highly esteemed citizen has been called from his sphere of usefulness. John J. Murdoch died on Wednesday last, in the sixty sixth year of his age. He was one of the few remaining links that united the present generation with the past, and his loss will leave a blank that can not be filled.
    Mr. Murdoch was a native of New Jersey, and was born near the city of Philadelphia. In 1838, when an active and thorough going young man, he came to St. Louis, then little more than a village, and opened an auction house in connection with the late Charles K. Dickson, which for thirty years was one of the leading houses of the Mississippi Valley. The firm was dissolved by the death of Mr. Dickson, and was succeeded by that of O. J. Lewis & Co., which still exists, and with which the deceased was connected as chief auctioneer up to the time of his last illness. The firm of Murdoch & Dickson was one of the pioneers in the auction business in the West, but did not confine its operations to that single branch, engaging in numerous other enterprises for the development of the resources for the city and State. They were foremost in all movements of a public nature, taking a prominent part in the establishment of three or four insurance companies; in the management of the old State Bank and its successor Third National; the Wrecking Company, with Eads and Nelson as active coadjutors; the laying out of new additions to the city; the construction of the first railroad in which St. Louis was directly interested (the O. and M.), the North Missouri and the Pacific, and, finally, the great bridge across the Mississippi, of which their associate, James B. Eads, was the chief engineer. In these and many other important enterprises the firm of Murdoch & Dickson took a leading part, and made successful by their intelligence, forethought and energy.
    Mr. Murdoch was a quiet and unobtrusive man, but full of generous impulses, and charitable to a fault. His generosity extended to all classes of people, and his house was the seat of unbounded hospitality. One incident may be related as showing the unselfish character of the man. When the war broke out he was living on a large farm at Laclede Station, five or six miles west of the city, and was the owner of a considerable number of slaves. Foreseeing that slavery was doomed, although the President's emancipation proclamation had not as yet been issued, he brought all his negroes to the city, and, conducting them to the crossroads at Sixteenth and Market streets, he told them they were free to take whichever of the four roads they might choose, as he had no further claim upon them. All the negroes but one burst into tears, and begged to be taken back home, and the one who accepted the offer of freedom returned to the farm in less than a week. He then gave them lands and the means of cultivating them, and instructed them on how to take care of themselves.
    Mr. Murdoch was one of the most benevolent of men, and took a silent pleasure in doing good to his fellow men. Unostentatious, but firm of character, he was a friend and counselor of which any one might be glad to receive assistance and instruction.
                    His life was gentle, and the elements
                    so mixed in him that nature might stand up
                    and say to all the world, This was a man.
    As the father of a family he was ever kind and indulgent, and all who knew him intimately will never cease to regret his loss. He died as he had often expressed a wish to die - in the bosom of his family, surrounded by a few intimate friends. He died calmly and peacefully, and surely, if the spirits of the just meet the reward of good deeds done in the flesh, the soul of John J. Murdoch is now among the blessed.
    The funeral will take place this (Sunday) afternoon at 2 o'clock from St. John's Church, corner of Sixteenth and Chestnut streets.

St. John's Church, circa 1876

That was quite a send-off for John Murdoch.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 14

According to notices in the St. Louis Republican, John Murdoch's farm and property were being auctioned off on the City of St. Louis courthouse steps on November 3, 1874. What happened on that day remains a mystery. Did no one come out to bid? Was there a minimum bid that did not get met? Or perhaps Murdoch came up with some money to keep the creditors at bay? What is known is that John Murdoch continued to work as an auctioneer for O.J. Lewis & Co., the firm that took over the business of Murdoch & Dickson, and his residence was still listed as Laclede Station in the 1875-1879 Gould's St. Louis Directories.

1876 map of St. Louis

St. Louis was undergoing some trying times of its own. Prior to 1877, St. Louis County included the City of St. Louis plus all the other areas within the county boundaries. The county seat was located in the City of St. Louis. But St. Louis City taxpayers decided in 1876 that they did not want to continue to support the cost of ongoing expansion in the county, and they voted to separate from St. Louis County. Often dubbed "The Great Divorce", the separation froze the boundaries of the City and at the time made it the only city in the United States not associated with a county. The population of St. Louis City in 1876 was 310,000 while the county had only 27,000 residents. John Murdoch now was working for a business in the city, while his residence came under the jurisdiction of the new county government center.

In 1877, John Murdoch once again appeared in the local newspaper. The St. Louis Globe-Democrat reported on October 4, 1877 that there had been a fire at Murdoch's farm - the third such fire in as many years. The article states that the fires had each been of "mysterious origin." It further indicated that the barn was "partially insured."

Murdoch Farm fire

The fire in 1877 gave rise to a lawsuit in which more of the precarious financial situation of the Murdochs became revealed.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 13

As assignee of the estate of Murdoch and Dickson, John Priest was required by Missouri law to appoint a day, within six months after the date of his assignment (October 14, 1873), and a place where he would proceed to adjust and allow the demands against the estate. He was then required to give notice of the time and place through an announcement published in a newspaper in the county where the business and its inventory was located. The notice had to be published for three months prior to the date that Priest would be meeting with creditors. Below is the April 25, 1874 listing that was placed in the St. Louis Republican by John Priest. (He didn't quite make the six month deadline, but apparently no one challenged him on it.)

Assignee's Notice for Murdoch & Dickson

In essence, the notice was advising the creditors of the firm that they had three days to present evidence of money owed to them - April 28, April 29, and April 30, 1874 between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Any claims made after that date would be "precluded from the benefit of said estate." It is important to note that the notice is accepting demands against the "estate of John J. Murdoch" as well as the "partnership estate of Murdoch & Dickson." 

Dickson's personal estate was not at risk here, which raises an interesting question. Partners are personally liable for the business obligations of the partnership. If the partnership cannot pay its debts, then the creditors can go after the partners' personal assets to satisfy them. So why was Murdoch's personal property at stake and not Dickson's? In fact, James Eads and Barton Bates filed a claim against the estate of Murdoch & Dickson on behalf of Charles Dickson's estate because the firm owed Dickson money at the time of his death. That claim was later disallowed by Priest "on the ground that a member of an insolvent firm cannot himself be a creditor of the Estate of the partnership in conflict with the interests of the general creditors." Normally a debt does not go away simply because the person who incurred the debt has died. Did Dickson structure his personal estate in such a way as to avoid any liability of the partnership?

As 1874 progressed there were more signs that John Murdoch was not recovering from the financial situation the insolvency of Murdoch & Dickson had placed him in. Here is part of an ad from the October 12, 1874 St. Louis Republican. The same ad was repeated in November 3, 1874.

Notice of sale of Murdoch Farm

The Murdoch Farm was to be auctioned off to the highest bidder on the courthouse stairs on November 3, 1874 between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The ad goes on to describe the 226 acres of land, stating the the sale includes the house where the Murdochs currently reside and the outbuildings on the property. 

St. Louis Courthouse circa 1870

How must that have felt? To know that you were about to lose the one thing people hold most dear - their home? And to have it done in the most public way possible?

Family History Writing Challenge Day 12

For two years John Murdoch handled the responsibilities of administering the Murdoch & Dickson partnership estate. But on October 14, 1873 he executed a deed of assignment of the partnership assets to John G. Priest for the benefit of creditors of Murdoch & Dickson. Through this assignment he undertook to convey to Priest as assignee all of his own property for the benefit pro rata of his individual creditors, and all of the property of the firm of Murdoch & Dickson for the benefit pro rata of the creditors of the firm. Subsequently in that same year, failing to obey an order of the court to give an additional bond as surviving partner, Murdoch was removed as administrator of the estate of Murdoch & Dickson. The Southwestern Reporter, in giving an overview of a lawsuit that was filed many years later, stated, "From the record facts before us, we have no doubt that the firm owed in excess of its assets and was insolvent."

James Eads and Barton Bates, as Trustees of the estate of Charles K. Dickson, were provided with the following accounting of the assets of the firm of Murdoch & Dickson. The amount of $93, 237.47 is shown, and a note below it states "subject to credits and debits." This was presumably provided to them by Priest.

Balance sheet of Murdoch & Dickson

John Priest, in the meantime, proceeded with his assignment, collecting assets, allowing claims, and disbursing moneys. Priest remained in the assignment capacity until 1888. At that time he applied for discharge from those responsibilities.

John Murdoch continued to work in the auctioneering business. A Tour of St. Louis or the Inside of a Great City by Joseph A. Dacus and James William Buel, published in 1878, had an accounting of the auctioneering firm of O.J. Lewis & Co.

In St. Louis there are several large auction houses, but the chief one among the many, representative of the West, is the immense house of O. J. Lewis & Co., No. 417 North Fifth Street. The present firm is the successor of Murdock & Dickson, who established business in 1836 at No. 204 and 206 North Main Street, at that time the center of the jobbing trade of the city, where they did a very large business. In the year 1873 Mr. O. J. Lewis purchased the entire interest in the concern, when the name of the firm was changed to its present title.

Because Murdoch & Dickson was in the process of liquidation, it would be interesting to know what, exactly, O.J. Lewis was able to purchase in 1873. Perhaps it was just the expertise of John Murdoch, as future city directories have him listed as working as an auctioneer with O.J. Lewis & Co. Lewis experienced great success with the business, moving it to a six story building consisting of twenty-seven thousand square feet.

While it must have been exciting to work for a company experiencing such growth, one can only imagine what it was like for Murdoch, who had always been his own boss, to no longer be the one calling the shots.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 11

St. Louis had a population of 310,864 residents in 1870, an increase of 93% over the 1860 census! It was now the fourth largest city in the United States, behind Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York. The next decade would show a continuation of impressive development in St. Louis. The City's limits reached 17.98 square miles, with a record high 58 subdivisions platted in 1870. Improvements in machinery caused industries to boom in North America, and St. Louis was no exception. This brought another influx of immigrants to the area, predominantly Germans and Irish. By 1870, Lemp Brewery was the largest brewery in St. Louis and controlled the lion's share of the market, and St. Louis became the first American city to legalize prostitution.

With the death of his business partner early in 1871, these things were probably of little concern to John Murdoch as he fought to save his business. Because Murdoch & Dickson was established as a partnership, the company dissolved on the day that Dickson died. On March 31, 1871, Murdoch qualified as surviving partner to administer the partnership estate in the probate court of the City of St. Louis. He posted a bond in the amount of $125,000, with James B. Eads and Barton Bates as sureties. (These same two men were handling the estate of Charles Dickson.) Shortly thereafter he filed an inventory of the assets of the business with the probate court.

Unfortunately, at this point in time the liabilities outweighed the assets of the company. Dickson himself was owed over $84,000 at the time of his death, and the firm was also indebted to James Eads in the amount of $34,000 and $5,000 to Barton Bates. The total indebtedness of the company was around $280,000. It is uncertain how the firm came to be in such dismal financial straights, but Murdoch was committed to trying to pay off the debt. This came at a cost to his personal financial situation.

On May 1, 1871 John and Julia Murdoch signed a Deed of Trust with Franklin A. Dick and Benjamin Farrar as parties of the second part, and Isaiah V. Williamson of the City of Philadelphia as party of the third part. Benjamin Farrar was an attorney and also Assistant Treasurer of the United States in St. Louis, and Franklin Dick practiced law in St. Louis as well. Isaiah Williamson owned a dry goods store in Philadelphia, and died a multi-millionaire in 1889. The purpose of the deed was to guarantee a $30,000 loan that was taken out on Murdoch Farm.  The loan was for a period of three years at an interest rate of 8%. Three parcels of land are outlined in the deed, consisting of 226.077 acres. One of the three parcels included the house where the Murdochs made their home and the farm's outbuilding. In the event that Murdoch failed to make a payment of the principal or interest, or to properly insure the property, the land was to be sold at public auction to the highest bidder.

John Murdoch was losing his business. Would he be able to hold onto his land?

Family History Writing Challenge Day 10

Dickson headstone

While selling off parts of his farm would have been difficult, John Murdoch must have been devastated by the news he received on January 26, 1871. His business partner of several decades, Charles K. Dickson, died at the age of 54. He left behind his wife Mary, age 49, and six children ranging in age from 10 to 21. At the time of his death, his mother-in-law Margaret Thomas, and four servants were also living with the family. The 1870 census indicated that the value of Dickson's real estate was $280,000 and his personal estate was $250,000. Mary Dickson is shown with a real estate value of $65,000.

Dickson was very well-known in St. Louis not only for his association with the firm of Murdoch & Dickson, but also because his enterprises extended in many directions, sometimes with John Murdoch and sometimes without. He was a leading stockholder, director and officer of the Western River Improvement and Wrecking Company, contributed to the success of nearly all the railroad companies, was part of the syndicate that purchased the State Bank of Missouri and converted it into the National Bank of the State of Missouri and was Vice President of the bank until his death.

Construction of Eads Bridge

He was President of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company, formed by James Eads to construct a combined road and railway bridge over the Mississippi River. Dickson invested heavily in this company in addition to being one of the largest stockholders of the bridge. The cornerstone of the bridge was laid on February 25, 1868. At the time it was the longest arch bridge ever built. It was also unique in that it was the first structure of any kind to make extensive use of steel. Dickson did not live to attend the opening ceremony on July 4, 1874 but James Eads invited his daughter Josephine Dickson Walsh to lead the 15-mile long parade, observe the speeches, and attend the fireworks display.

At the time of his death, Dickson was also a director in the Third National Bank; the North Missouri Railroad; the Brunswick, Chillicothe and Council Bluffs Railroad; the Tower Grove Railway Company; and the People's Railway Company. He was also President of the Granby Lead Mining Company.

His death notice took up three columns in the newspaper, and concluded by stating:

Mr. Dickson was not only a man of rare abilities, but he was also a thoroughly honest man, and with all so modest and retiring, that we doubt not that many who knew him well will learn with surprise that his magic hand supported and vitalized many of the public works we have above enumerated. The death of such a man is a great public calamity.

Many St. Louisans would feel the loss of Charles Dickson.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 8

St. Louis circa 1870, Murdoch & Dickson offices at #9 on map

The financial status of St. Louis was certainly impacted by the Civil War. The war years brought a cessation of river traffic, resulting in St. Louis being cut off from its traditional and most lucrative markets in the south. This in turn harmed the local businesses. The decrease in steamboat traffic particularly caused the downtown levy to decline in importance at St. Louis. After forty years of nearly uninterrupted growth, this was traumatic for the city.

Additionally, there were allegations of impropriety within the U.S. Army Quartermaster's office under the command of Justus McKinstry. His administration was accused of fraud and abuse, with local businessmen bearing the brunt of the corruption. As the firm of Murdoch & Dickson was engaged in supplying everything from clothes to shoes and boots to dry goods, it is highly possible that the firm was a victim of this deception. Their real estate investments would also be a problem due to the fact that the war brought a virtual halt to construction in St. Louis.

1867 Deed

The first inkling of trouble for the firm came in the form of a deed that was entered on May 29, 1867. Charles and Mary Dickson along with John and Julia Murdoch were the parties of the first part, and James Eads and Charles Stevens were parties of the second part. Party of the third part was Barton Bates. Murdoch and Dickson owed Bates $25,000, and they did not have the resources to pay him back. A lot in Block 89 of the City of St. Louis was conveyed to Eads and Stevens to be held in Trust on behalf of Murdoch and Dickson. If the $25,000 was paid to Bates in five, $5,000 notes plus 8% interest, then the land would convert back to Murdoch and Dickson. If the payments were not made, then the land would be sold by Eads and Stevens at auction to satisfy the debt.

James Eads was an important businessman in St. Louis, having arrived in the city was he was just thirteen years old. A self-taught engineer, he began his business life by rescuing wrecked boats and cargo from the Mississippi River. This proved to be lucrative as insurance companies would pay him a percentage of any recovered goods. He then put these skills to work constructing ironclad gunboats for the War Department during the Civil War. In 1867, he formed an organization dedicated to building a bridge across the Mississippi River in St. Louis. Charles Dickson was very instrumental in the organization, which is probably the reason that Eads got involved in this Deed.

But it is this quote from the 1991 book Yankee Merchants and the Making of the Urban West by Jeffrey Adler that offers the best explanation of why a firm with the successful record of Murdoch & Dickson discovered its foundation crumbling around it.

Would the firm be able to recover from the disaster encountered by the east coast investor?

Family History Writing Challenge Day 5

1857 map of St. Louis County

In the 1857 Kennedy's Saint Louis Directory, John Murdoch is listed as living "in country", though the business of Murdoch & Dickson remained located on Main Street in downtown St. Louis. An 1849 deed indicated that John J. Murdoch, Charles K. Dickson and Mary T. Dickson, his wife, purchased 613.71 acres of land in the County of St. Louis from Adam G. Stewart and his wife. A portion of this property was sold by Murdoch and Dickson in 1850 to John J. Wilshusen. Wilshusen was a farmer in St. Louis County, and his property abutted what would become the farm of Murdoch. It is likely then, that Murdoch Farm was carved out of the 613.71 acres purchased by him and the Dicksons in 1849.

illustration of Murdoch mansion

The farm was part of Lot 10 in the Kenneth McKenzie subdivision. McKenzie was a fur trader in St. Louis before purchasing 3,000 acres of the eastern half of the Gregoire Sarpy lands. In 1842, McKenzie had his lands surveyed and divided into forty acre tracts, which he put up for sale.

The Murdoch family lived in a two-story stone mansion, and the 350 acres included orchards as well as farm land. There were several outbuildings as well, including at least two slave houses and a barn. A newspaper article described the barn as "one of the finest in the county, being three stories high including the basement, and cost about $15,000."

It is interesting to note that Laclede Station on the Pacific Railroad, which both Murdoch and Dickson helped to finance, was located just north of this land. Was it a coincidence that the two men purchased over 613 acres in the area where the new train line would be built? In the same year that Missouri issued the charter for the Pacific Railroad? In any event, perhaps Murdoch took the train each day from his farm to the office in St. Louis.

In 1859, John and Julia had their first child, whom they named John. The 1860 census lists a total of sixteen people at the farm. The value of Murdoch's real estate is $85,000, and his personal estate is $10,200. In addition to John, his wife and their son, John's brother William and his two daughters are listed, as well as his and William's mother Maria. There are also two farm hands and two servants shown. The remaining people on the census are William M. Plant and his family. Plant's occupation is Merchant and Farmer, the same as Murdoch, but his real estate is valued at $8,000 and his personal estate at $10,000. Plant settled in the Webster Groves area nearby in the 1860s. It would be interesting to know why his family was living with the Murdochs. Were they waiting for their home to be built?

The 1860 U.S. Federal Slave Schedule shows John J. Murdoch as the owner of ten slaves, four females and six males, ranging in age from four years to thirty-eight years. One of the slaves of a neighboring estate ran away, and Murdoch placed an ad in the newspaper offering a reward for the return of the thirty-five-year-old male to the office of Murdoch & Dickson. Apparently this was another service offered by the firm.

notice of runaway slave

The Civil War was right around the corner. What impact would it have on business in St. Louis? And on John Murdoch with his large farm?

Family History Writing Challenge Day 4

1850 Census

Despite the cholera epidemic and devastating fire in 1849, a resilient St. Louis continued to grow in 1850, becoming the largest city west of Pittsburgh. It also was the second largest port in the United States, with commercial tonnage exceeded only by New York. The economy was boosted by the sheer number of Forty-Niners, those heading to California for the gold rush, who came to the area. In addition to outfitting the would-be gold seekers passing through St. Louis, local merchants also shipped supplies to Independence and St. Joseph, Missouri, the jumping-off points for the trail west.

John Murdoch was living in the 3rd Ward with five other non-related people, according to the 1850 census. That same year, on January 19th, his firm established the John J Murdoch and Charles K Dickson Addition. The ten block area ran between Randolph and Market Streets, with Adolph Street as the eastern property line.

In 1851, construction began on the Pacific Railroad (known as the Missouri

locomotive

Pacific Railway by 1872). The Pacific Railroad was chartered by the State of Missouri in 1849 to extend from St. Louis to the Pacific Ocean. St. Louis City and St. Louis County contributed $5,000 each, and the County also issued $875,000 in bonds. Murdoch and Dickson both participated in the financing of the railroad. Ground was broken on July 4, 1851, and on December 9, 1852 the first passenger train west of the Mississippi River ran on the initial section of track from Fourteen Street to Sulphur Springs - a distance of five miles. Sulphur Springs was located in St. Louis County, and was later renamed Cheltenham. By 1853, the line had extended through Webster Groves and Kirkwood, and out to Franklin (later called Pacific).

On September 9, 1851 the seventy-two block Stoddard's Addition, established by Henry Stoddard and including purchases by John Murdoch and Charles Dickson, was dedicated by Stoddard and Murdoch. Bounded by Jefferson, Laclede, Leffingwell Avenue and Dayton Street, its lots were sold in the first great auction of real estate in St. Louis. The elevated location of Stoddard's Addition made it a desirable place for the city's wealthier residents to build fashionable mansions. Stoddard was later sued by the heirs of the original owner of the property, Amos Stoddard, with the litigation lasting for many years. There is no indication that either Murdoch or Dickson were parties to the lawsuit, though they were mentioned in the proceedings.

Old Cathedral

At the age of 41, Murdoch married Julia Hull on January 31, 1855 at the Basilica of Saint Louis, King of France, more commonly known as the Old Cathedral. Julia was the twenty-year-old niece of Charles Dickson, his sister Susan Dickson Hull's daughter. Marcia Smith, first bridesmaid, described the wedding festivities to her sister in a letter written April 7, 1855.

"They were married in the Catholic Cathedral at half past six in the evening-afterwhich we all went to Mrs. Dickson's and had a most magnificent wedding [reception]. The bride's dress was a white silk, with a thule dress over, made with three skirts, each embroidered with chenille, and a large thule veil embroidered in the same manner with the skirt. She looked sweetly, but her dress was very plain indeed, (at least so considered there, for everyone was so elegantly). She selected this dress because it was plain; she desired something different from what bridal dresses had been this winter: her veil was fastened on with three or four white Japonicas, and [she] held in her hand a very beautiful bouquet of flowers and a silver holder. I being the first bridesmaid, wore a white silk made with low neck and short sleeves, and a double skirt of thule, each skirt with a wide hem and looped up on one side with a bunch of artificial flowers."

Miss Smith goes on to describe in great detail the dresses of the other bridesmaids, the decorations, the music that was played, and the interior of the rooms in the Dickson house where the dining and dancing occurred. She ends by stating, "Mr. Dickson's house is an immense one and so well adapted to giving a large party. There were about 476 invitations out."

Things were going quite well for Murdoch & Dickson.

Family History Writing Challenge Day 2

1844 map of St. Louis

Kimball & James Business Directory

With his new business thriving, John Murdoch was soon joined by Charles K. Dickson. Dickson was one year younger than Murdoch, and he was also born in New Jersey. It is possible that they knew each other back east. The first time that Dickson appears in connection to Murdoch is in the Kimball & James Business Directory for the Mississippi Valley: 1844. Another employee,  J. B. Solms, is also listed, as well as the fact that the company is represented by S. J. Solms of Philadelphia. Solms was probably the east coast backer who enabled Murdoch to start a new business in St. Louis. Dickson and Murdoch are both shown to be living at the address of Murdoch & Co., now located at 55 N. First.

The business was undoubtedly affected by the flooding of the Mississippi River in 1844 as its location was only one block west of the river. The winter of 1843-1844 was bitterly cold with heavy snowfalls to the north of St. Louis. When the snows melted, the river began to rise. The problem was compounded when St. Louis received seventeen inches of rainfall in the months of May and June, causing the Mississippi River to overflow its banks. Water was ten to twenty feet deep in the streets of downtown. The flood in St. Louis reached its greatest height between the 24th and 27th of  June, and was thirty-eight feet and seven inches above the low water mark.

By 1847 an ad appears in the St. Louis Directory for the first time referencing the business as Murdoch & Dickson Auction & Commission Merchants. The men are now business partners, and this would prove to be a crucial turning point in the fate of John Murdoch and his family down the road. In August of the same year, 31-year-old Dickson married Mary E. Thomas, the 26-year-old daughter of United States Army Captain Martin Thomas and his wife Margaret. Captain Thomas built the United States Arsenal in St. Louis. Charles and Mary would go on to have seven children, one of whom they named John Murdoch Dickson, a testimony to the relationship between the Dicksons and John Murdoch.

Murdoch & Dickson as a firm did not limit itself to the auctioneering business, but expanded into real estate as well. The city limits of St. Louis were expanding due to the increased population, and in 1848, Murdoch & Dickson established the Fairview Addition. The addition was located between Sidney and Victor Streets, from Rosati to Morton.

Fairview Addition, St. Louis

Things were going well for both Murdoch and Dickson in 1848. Two devastating events in 1849 would change that.

Bridging the Past

Stan Musial Bridge

Yesterday was the ribbon cutting for the new bridge spanning the Mississippi River between Missouri and Illinois. It is named the Stan Musial Veterans Memorial Bridge in honor of a great man who was a World War II Vet as well as a Cardinals ballplayer, and for all veterans in America. For one day only, you could walk, run or bike across the bridge yesterday. I wanted to attend the event for a couple of reason. Despite the cold, I thought it would be a once in a lifetime opportunity as this is a vehicle-only bridge with no pedestrian or bike lanes. But the second reason was maybe more important. The first bridge to span the Mississippi River at St. Louis was the Eads Bridge, which opened 140 years ago in 1874. John Murdoch and his partner Charles Dickson were investors in both the company building the bridge. In fact Dickson was President of the Illinois and St. Louis Bridge Company, which built the bridge.

Dickson died before the Eads Bridge was completed, but I imagine that Murdoch attended the opening ceremonies on July 4, 1874. The bridge was first christened by Mrs. Julius Walsh, daughter of Charles Dickson, followed by a 100 gun salute and multiple speeches. Then the parade began. Police, politicians and key citizens were the first to cross, followed by a line of people that reportedly stretched for 13 miles! There were marching bands and fireworks to mark the celebration as well.

In attending the opening of the new Mississippi bridge 140 years later, I had a similar experience to Murdoch. There were police and politicians, key citizens and a parade. Nine speeches were given, and while it was a little chilly to just stand and listen, I have to say that each speech was fairly short, mostly non-political, and predominantly inspirational. After walking across the bridge to Illinois, we stayed and enjoyed the parade. There were no marching bands, but the military units, classic cars and the Clydesdale horses more than made up for the lack of music. And I appreciated the fact that the parade was far from being 13 miles long.

A walk on the bridge of the future gave me an opportunity to take a glimpse into the past. And that will hopefully make a nice addition to my John Murdoch story.