1. Home
  2. The Papers
Introduction to City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault Complaint, 1 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Warrant, 1 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Subpoena, 2 December 1842–A [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Subpoena, 2 December 1842–B [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Complaint, 2 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Subpoena, 3 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Subpoena, 5 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Warrant, 6 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Docket Entry, between 1 and circa 6 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Docket Entry, between 1 and circa 6 December 1842, Copy [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Bond, 9 December 1842 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Supersedeas, 19 January 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Praecipe, 9 May 1843 Subpoena, 9 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Praecipe, 15 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Motion, circa 15 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Docket Entry, Motions, 16 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Agreement, 18 May 1843 Praecipe, 23 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Docket Entry, Motion Sustained, 23 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Docket Entry, circa 23 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Affidavit, 24 May 1843–A [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Affidavit, 24 May 1843–B [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Affidavit, 25 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Fee Bill, 19 September 1843–A [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Fee Bill, 19 September 1843–B [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault] Docket Entry, Motion, 20 October 1843 Docket Entry, Fieri Facias, between 23 May and circa 18 December 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault]

Motion, circa 15 May 1843 [City of Nauvoo v. Davis for Assault]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page [1]
image
ats [ad sectam]) on appeal
City of
<​No. 75​>
The by his atty moves the Court to dismiss this suit for the reasons following to wit;
1st because said suit was instituted an under an ordinance contrary to the constitution & laws of the & of this —
2nd Because said Case is unsupported by law, ordinance &c—
[C. O.] Warner P. D. [pro defendente]— [p. [1]]
ats ad sectam) on appeal
City of
No. 75
The by his atty moves the Court to dismiss this suit for the reasons following to wit;
1st because said suit was instituted under an ordinance contrary to the constitution & laws of the & of this —
2nd Because said Case is unsupported by law, ordinance &c—
[C. O.] Warner P. D. [pro defendente]— [p. [1]]
View entire transcript |
Cite this page
Cite this page
Page [1]
1
Contact Us FAQ Follow Us on Facebook

Request for Documents

Do you know of any Joseph Smith documents that we might not have heard about? Tell us

The Church Historian’s Press is an imprint of the Church History Department of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah, and a trademark of Intellectual Reserve, Inc.

© 2020 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use (Updated 2018-09-01) | Privacy Notice (Updated 2018-09-01) |