Transcript of Proceedings, circa 24 October 1837 [Newbould v. Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery]
Transcript of Proceedings, [, Geauga Co., OH], ca. 24 Oct. 1837, Newbould v. Rigdon, Smith & Cowdery (Geauga Co., OH, Court of Common Pleas 1837); Geauga County Court of Common Pleas, Common Pleas Record, vol. U, pp. 351–353; handwriting of Charles H. Foot; signature presumably of ; Geauga County Archives and Records Center, Chardon, OH.
fifth day of June AD 1837. and Hiram Corey of the County of personally appeared before me Clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of the said County of and severally acknowledged themselves to owe unto the sum of eight hundred dollars each to be levied upon their several goods and chattels, lands, tenements and real estates upon condition that if the defendants , Joseph Smith Jnr. and shall be condemned in this action at the suit of the plaintiff they shall pay the costs and condemnation of the Court or be rendered or rendered or render themselves into the custody of the of said for the same; or in case of failure that the said and Hiram Corey will pay the costs and condemnation for them. Taken and acknowledged the day and year above written before me.
And thereupon it was ordered by the Court that this cause be continued until the next term of said court.— Afterwards to wit, on the eighth day of July in the year aforesaid, the plaintiffs filed in the office of the aforesaid, his declaration in the words and figures following to wit:—
“The State of Ohio, ss. [scilicet]} In the Court of Common Pleas, after June Term 1837— complains of , Joseph Smith Jnr. & under the firm of , in a plea of the case for that whereas the defendants under the name of their said firm of on the seventeenth day of June eighteen hundred thirty six, at to wit, at Geauga County Ohio, made his promissory note in writing & delivered the same to the said and thereby promised to pay to the said or order two hundred eighty seven 32/100 dollars in six months from the date of the said note which period has now elapsed, and the said defendants then and there in consideration of the premises promised to pay the amount of the said note to the said according to the tenor and effect thereof.— complains of Joseph Smith Jr. and under the firm of in a plea of the case for that whereas the defendants under the name of their said firm on the twentieth day of December eighteen hundred thirty six at to wit, Geauga County was indebted to the in the sum of four hundred dollars for the price and value of goods then & there bargained and sold by the to the defendants at their request: And in the sum of four hundred dollars for the price and value of goods then and there sold and delivered by the to the defendants at their request: and in the sum of four hundred dollars of the price and value of work then and there done and materials for the same provided by the for the defendant at their request: And in the sum of four hundred dollars for money then and there lent by the to the defendants at their request: And in the sum of four hundred dollars for money then and there paid by the for the use of the defendant at their request: And in the sum of four hundred dollars for money then and there received by the defendants for the use of the : And in the sum of four hundred dollars for money found to be due from the defendants to the on an account then and there stated between them: And whereas the defendants afterwards on the first day of January eighteen hundred thirty seven in consideration of the premises then and there promised to pay the said several sums of money to the on request. Yet they have disregarded their promises & have not paid the said several sums of money nor either of them nor any part thereof, To the damage of the four hundred dollars and thereupon he brings suit &c.
<Perkins & Osborn s Attys.”>
And now at this term of said Court, that is to say, at the term thereof first aforesaid come the said parties and by their mutual agreement this cause is discontinued at the costs of the defendants. It is therefore considered by the Court that the recover against the defendants his costs and charges by him in and about the prosecuting of this suit in that behalf expended, taxed at ten dollars and seventy- [p. 352]