Family History Writing Challenge Day 15

The fire that destroyed John Murdoch's barn on October 4, 1877 gave rise to a lawsuit that was filed on April 30, 1878. Franklin A. Dick filed suit against the Franklin Fire Insurance Company, which on April 24, 1874 issued a policy on the barn (and probably the other structures on Murdoch Farm as well). The policy, by its terms, insured F.A. Dick and Ben Farrar, trustees of Isaiah V. Williamson, against loss or damage by fire, to the amount of $3,500 on their interest under a deed of trust in a certain building in St. Louis County. The insurance company was contesting that Dick and Farrar had an insurable interest in the covered property.

The interest of Dick and Farrar in the insured premises was that of trustee under a deed of trust executed on May 1, 1871 by John J. Murdoch and wife to them, to secure a loan of $30,000 made by Isaiah V. Williamson to Murdoch for a period of five years. The interest rate was eight per cent per annum, payable semi-annually; the principal of debt being evidenced by a note of $30,000 due in five years, and the interest by ten notes for $1,200 each, maturing successively at every six months after the date of the loan.

May 1 1871 Deed of Trust

Among the other covenants of the grantors of the deed of trust was the following: “And also to keep the buildings on said premises insured for a sum of not less than $16,000, until said noted be paid, in a company or companies satisfactory to the party of the third part [Williamson], the policy or policies of insurance to be assigned or made payable to the party of the second part [Dick & Farrar], and the money collected thereon in case of fire, to be held until said building be rebuilt by said first parties [Murdochs], as collateral security for said note, and when rebuilt shall be applied in payment of such rebuilding. If such insurance be not kept up, the party of the third part may pay the necessary premium therefore, and all sums so paid shall be held secured by the deed of trust, for the repayment of which and ten per cent per annum interest thereon said premises may be sold as below provided. Any failure by said first party to comply with any of the provisions of this deed of trust shall, at the option of the third party, make said principal notes immediately due.”

The court ruled in favor of Franklin Dick, and Franklin Insurance Company appealed. The Missouri Court of Appeals on May 31, 1881 ruled that a trustee in a deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage has an insurable interest in the property covered thereby distinct from that of the mortgagor. The Missouri Appellate Court has held that the mere fact that, under the terms of a fire insurance policy, the loss is made payable to a third person, gives such person a prima facie interest in the insurance contract, although he may have no insurable interest in the property insured. "And where a debtor’s interest in property insured, the loss being made payable to the creditor, the latter has a valid interest in the insurance contract, the debtor being a mere trustee for him. The fact that an insurer had opportunity to inquire, if it wished, as to the interest of the assured, and that it issues him a policy, is prima facie evidence of his insurable interest, placing the burden on the insurer to disprove it."

Within the ruling of the appellate court was a new piece of information about Murdoch's financial situation.

Before the policy was written, namely the fifth day of May 1873, Murdock [sic] and his wife executed a second deed of trust, by which they conveyed the premises in question to Robert M. Renick, as trustee for David H. Armstrong, to secure the latter against a liability which he had incurred to the extent of over $30,000, as indorser for Murdock [sic]. Moreover, the answer alleges, and the reply does not deny - and it must, therefore, be taken as true - that on December 20, 1873, Murdock [sic] sold and conveyed all his right, title, and interest in and to the premises, to John G. Priest, and that Murdock [sic] has had no interest in the premises, or in any part of them, since that time. There is evidence that all the premiums necessary to keep the policy in force were paid by Dick and Farrar, but were repaid to them by Armstrong, the second mortgagee. 

When the deed of trust matured, namely, on May 1, 1876, Armstrong, to protect his own interest, entered into a written contract with Williamson, in which he assumed and agreed to pay the debt secured by the deed of trust, and by which Williamson extended the time of payment for two years longer, namely until May 1, 1878, at the same rate of interest, for which Armstrong gave to Williamson four notes for $1,200 each, maturing successively every six months thereafter.

It now appears that in addition to owing Isaiah Williamson $30,000 plus interest, Murdoch also was in debt to David H. Armstrong in an amount exceeding $30,000.

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 9

The portion of the Pitzman's 1868 map of St. Louis pictured below shows some of the property in St. Louis County that was owned by John Murdoch, as well as a piece of land held by Murdoch & Dickson.

Murdoch Farm 1868

Murdoch's Farm was described in John Thomas Scharf's book, History of St. Louis City and County as containing orchards in addition to farmland, and Murdoch himself was mentioned in the section of the book discussing Richard J. Lockwood, who lived near Murdoch.

John Murdoch

Despite his apparent skills in business and farming, in 1869 Murdoch had his land surveyed and platted his farm. On April 28, 1869 an ad appeared in the real estate section of the Missouri Democrat offering the 350 acres of Murdoch Farm, divided into about five acres each, for sale at auction on May 10th. The ad read, in part, "This property is that high and beautiful ground south of Laclede Station by the property of the Sisters of the Sacred Heart....Is all under fence and mostly in cultivation and is the well known farm of John J Murdock. The mansion and the fifty acres of ground will be reserved and the balance sold to the highest bidder."

While some of the acreage sold, the vast majority of it did not, at least in 1869. The 1870 census indicated that John Murdoch, at age 55, was still living in St. Louis County with his 34-year-old wife, Julia. They had the following children: John age 11, Mary age 8, Emma age 6, George age 4, William age 2, and Joseph age 3 months. There are also four female servants listed, but no laborers. Murdoch's profession was listed as merchant, with real estate valued at $125,000 and $4,060 in his personal estate.

The firm of Murdoch and Dickson was still listed in the 1870 Edwards St. Louis Directory as being located at 204 & 206 N Main, and Murdoch was shown residing at Laclede Station Road P.R.R., reinforcing that he was still living on the farm.

On May 20, 26 & 30, 1870 postings appeared in the Missouri Republican advertising the sale of lots at Murdoch Farm. The number of available acres listed is 260, down from the originally advertised 350.

May 20th ad

May 20th ad continued

May 26th ad

May 30th ad

It is interesting to note that in the May 30th ad, the real estate auctioneers were serving lunch to anyone who came to look at the property. By September, lots were still be sold as indicated in this listing of Real Estate Transfers in September 26, 1870 Missouri Republican.

September 26, 1870

These two lots contain over 7 acres, and sold for $928. This transfer did not fall within the confines of the advertisements, which indicated that lots would be sold in 5 acre increments. These lots were located just south of what appears to be the actual farm land on the 1869 plat, so perhaps that is the explanation for the variance of acres sold.

Little by little, the life's work of John Murdoch was being whittled away. In 1871 he would lose something much more important to him and his family than the land they were living on.

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.