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 16

Pitzman's Atlas of St. Louis 1878

Pitzman's New Atlas of the City and County of Saint Louis, Missouri 1878 clearly shows the areas of land owned by John Murdoch at the time the survey was taken. Julius Pitzman was the St. Louis County surveyor until the split of the city from the county. At that time he became the surveyor for the City of St. Louis.

Outlined in red is the property of Murdoch. On the bottom part of the map you can see the areas that he had subdivided. Some of these lots may have been sold off by the time this survey was taken in 1878.

According to Gould's St. Louis Directory, in 1878 John Murdoch was still residing on his farm in St. Louis County. He remained employed by O.J. Lewis & Co. as an auctioneer.

On May 2, 1878 in St. Louis County Deed Book 6, page 485 a Trustee Sale was filed by Benjamin Farrar. It listed a property description of Murdoch Farm, including the 226 acres, mansion and outbuildings, and further stated that Murdoch was still residing on the premises. John Murdoch had not paid the loan, interest or taxes on the property, thus putting him in default. The document detailed the auction of Murdoch Farm to be held on May 22nd at the eastern front door of the St. Louis City Courthouse between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., where the auctioneer will "proceed to sell the above described property at public auction to the highest bidder for cash to satisfy said note and interest and taxes and the costs and expenses of executing said deed."  The Trustee Sale was published in the St. Louis Daily Journal twenty-one times, beginning on May 2, 1878 with the last insertion appearing on May 22, 1878.

Isaiah Williamson was the highest and last bidder, paying $23,000 for the land, and a Deed transferring the property to him was signed on May 22, 1878. The 226 acre farm, mansion and outbuildings of John Murdoch now belonged to Isaiah Williamson. Murdoch literally lost the farm on the courthouse steps.

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?