Pay Order to Brother Davis, circa 1 March 1841
JS, Pay Order, to “Brother Davis,” [, Hancock Co., IL], ca. 1 Mar. 1841; handwriting of JS; two pages; Newel K. Whitney, Papers, BYU.Single leaf measuring 4⅜ × 7½ inches (11 × 19 cm). The pay order was written on the recto. After the order was hand delivered and returned with payment, an endorsement was added on the verso. At some point the document was folded for filing.JS presumably gave this document to , who kept a variety of financial records for the church. This document, along with many other personal and institutional documents that Whitney kept, was inherited by his daughter Mary Jane Whitney, who married Isaac Groo. The documents were passed down within the Groo family. Between 1969 and 1974, the Groo family donated their collection of Newel K. Whitney’s papers to the Harold B. Lee Library at Brigham Young University.
Andrus, Hyrum L., and Chris Fuller, comp. Register of the Newel Kimball Whitney Papers. Provo, UT: Division of Archives and Manuscripts, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, 1978.
JS wrote this pay order to a “Brother Davis”—probably —to request funds from him. Unlike other extant pay order documents from JS, no date was written at the top of this document; the note of receipt written by JS on the verso of the document is dated 1 March 1841. Because the document was presumably produced, sent, received, and returned in , Illinois, where both JS and Davis lived, it is possible that JS wrote the pay order earlier the same day., a land owner and merchant who operated a store in between 1839 and 1842, joined the in 1840. A trusted member of the community, Davis hosted city council meetings in his home. He had also previously exchanged money and entered land transactions with JS. However, an extant account book for Davis lists no transaction with JS around 1 March 1841, suggesting that the money may have been a gift to a friend rather than a loan.Upon receiving the requested money and the returned pay order, JS added the aforementioned note of receipt, which also clarifies that JS was requesting the money for himself and not on behalf of the unnamed “bearer.” The note of receipt is in a different ink, suggesting JS may have received the payment in a different setting from that in which he produced the original document.