No image available

Introduction to Boynton and Hyde v. JS

Boynton and Hyde v. JS
Geauga Co., Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, 3 April 1838
 
Historical Introduction
On April 6, 1837, JS and addressed members of the church in , Ohio, remarking on the church’s financial woes. One of the primary debts was the construction of the temple or . In addition to purchasing building materials, the church was also in debt for goods bought from merchants and then sold to temple workmen. Rigdon noted that “the unliquidated debt for the building was rising of thirteen thousand dollars.” The following week, 13 April, amid the mounting pressure of church debts, JS, Rigdon, , and gave a promissory note to , a local dry goods merchant, promising to pay him $825 plus interest in five months. At some point Howden transferred the note to Ray Boynton and his partner Harry Hyde, two merchants. When the note came due and payment was not forthcoming, Boynton and Hyde brought an action, known as assumpsit, to recover the debt. Notice of the action—a summons issued on 26 October 1837—was served on JS’s wife because JS was traveling to at the time.
On 30 November, Boynton’s attorney, George W. Lynde, filed a declaration, or complaint, in the Court of Common Pleas in , Ohio. Following the form of the day, the wording of the complaint enumerated the single claim of $1,200 in multiple ways as various damages. JS had not yet returned from when Boynton’s attorney filed the declaration, and when he finally did return to in December, his stay was not long. On 12 January 1838, facing the threat of mob violence, JS and fled Kirtland for the friendlier confines of , Missouri. In JS’s absence, a default judgment was issued against him in April 1838.
After Boynton and Hyde obtained judgment against JS, they immediately commenced an action against for payment on the note. Howden countered that after the note became due, he had entered an agreement with Boynton to pay the expenses of prosecuting JS and in return Boynton had promised not to prosecute Howden for payment of the note. Howden further claimed that Boynton had refused to issue an execution upon the property of JS and the other signers of the note. Boynton, in turn, denied making the agreement Howden claimed. In April 1839 the court decided in Boynton’s favor, and Howden appealed. Thereafter, for unknown reasons, Boynton released Howden from the obligation and again attempted to collect from JS and the other signers of the note. Efforts were still being made to collect on the judgment in the 1840s, without success.
Boynton and Hyde also brought an action against , , , and . For court documents relating to these proceedings see “Documents Related to Boynton and Hyde v. JS.”
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
Boynton and Hyde v. JS
Geauga Co., Ohio, Court of Common Pleas, 3 April 1838
 
Historical Introduction
On April 6, 1837, JS and addressed members of the church in , Ohio, remarking on the church’s financial woes. One of the primary debts was the construction of the temple or . In addition to purchasing building materials, the church was also in debt for goods bought from merchants and then sold to temple workmen. Rigdon noted that “the unliquidated debt for the building was rising of thirteen thousand dollars.” The following week, 13 April, amid the mounting pressure of church debts, JS, Rigdon, , and gave a promissory note to , a local dry goods merchant, promising to pay him $825 plus interest in five months. At some point Howden transferred the note to Ray Boynton and his partner Harry Hyde, two merchants. When the note came due and payment was not forthcoming, Boynton and Hyde brought an action, known as assumpsit, to recover the debt. Notice of the action—a summons issued on 26 October 1837—was served on JS’s wife because JS was traveling to at the time.
On 30 November, Boynton’s attorney, George W. Lynde, filed a declaration, or complaint, in the Court of Common Pleas in , Ohio. Following the form of the day, the wording of the complaint enumerated the single claim of $1,200 in multiple ways as various damages. JS had not yet returned from when Boynton’s attorney filed the declaration, and when he finally did return to in December, his stay was not long. On 12 January 1838, facing the threat of mob violence, JS and fled Kirtland for the friendlier confines of , Missouri. In JS’s absence, a default judgment was issued against him in April 1838.
After Boynton and Hyde obtained judgment against JS, they immediately commenced an action against for payment on the note. Howden countered that after the note became due, he had entered an agreement with Boynton to pay the expenses of prosecuting JS and in return Boynton had promised not to prosecute Howden for payment of the note. Howden further claimed that Boynton had refused to issue an execution upon the property of JS and the other signers of the note. Boynton, in turn, denied making the agreement Howden claimed. In April 1839 the court decided in Boynton’s favor, and Howden appealed. Thereafter, for unknown reasons, Boynton released Howden from the obligation and again attempted to collect from JS and the other signers of the note. Efforts were still being made to collect on the judgment in the 1840s, without success.
Boynton and Hyde also brought an action against , , , and . For court documents relating to these proceedings see “Documents Related to Boynton and Hyde v. JS.”
 
Calendar of Documents
This calendar lists all known documents created by or for the court, whether extant or not. It does not include versions of documents created for other purposes, though those versions may be listed in footnotes. In certain cases, especially in cases concerning unpaid debts, the originating document (promissory note, invoice, etc.) is listed here. Note that documents in the calendar are grouped with their originating court. Where a version of a document was subsequently filed with another court, that version is listed under both courts.
 
 
Boynton and Hyde v. JS, Court of Common Pleas