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.