Abraham Lincoln to Gustave P. Koerner, 19 July 18571
Springfield, July 19. 1857Hon: G. KoernerDear Sir:Your letter of the 8th to Lincoln & Herndon was received ^& opened^ by Mr Herndon in my absence; but finding it relating to business with which I was more familiar
he laid it by till my return, which was only yesterday–2
The judgment of Page & Bacon against the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company, in the U.S.
court here, was taken, by confession on a cognovit, at the March term 1856 for the sum
of $312.413.74.
including costs. Execution issued April 16th 1856, which
was, by order of the plaintiffs returned unsatisfied, sale having been postponed, June 6. 1856– While it
was in the hands of the Marshal, it was levied on the entire property of the Road (as I suppose, a large
amount at any rate) which levy remains undisposed of–3
Will you please remember that our Sangamon Circuit Court commences Augt[August] 10. when I suppose our Quo Warranto case will come up, and when I shall be glad to
have
the benefit of your legal assistance–4
Yours very trulyA. Lincoln–5<Page 2>
2Gustave P. Koerner’s letter to Lincoln & Herndon of July 8, 1857, has not been located.
Lincoln had been in Chicago attending the U.S. Circuit Court for the Northern District of Illinois from at least July 7 through July 18, 1857.
The Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology of the Life of Abraham Lincoln, July 1857, https://thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarMonth&year=1857&month=7.
3Lincoln is discussing the case of Bacon v. Ohio & Mississippi RR. The Ohio & Mississippi Railroad Company had received funds from the banking firm
of Page & Bacon with which to finance construction of the railroad in Illinois. The railroad’s board agreed in February 1856 to pay Page & Bacon $312,133.35 to
settle the debt, and gave the firm a cognovit note dated February 28, 1856, for that
amount. A cognovit note is a type of promissory note that simplifies the collection
of debts through the courts, as the debtor instructs an attorney to confess judgment
against them if they fail to pay the note. Lincoln was the attorney so instructed
in the note given by the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad to Page & Bacon, and which the
banking firm assigned to Henry D. Bacon. After the railroad failed to pay, Lincoln exercised the authority given to him in
the cognovit note and filed suit against the railroad on Bacon’s behalf in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of Illinois. Lincoln wrote the declaration laying out Bacon’s case, but signed William H. Herndon’s name to it as the attorney of record for Bacon. As attorney representing the railroad,
Lincoln then confessed judgment for $312,133.35 for the debt and $256.54 in damages,
and the court allowed the confession.
Koerner was not a participant in Bacon v. Ohio & Mississippi RR, but was an attorney for the plaintiffs in the ongoing case of Clark & Morrison v. Page et al., which also concerned the firm of Page & Bacon and the Ohio & Mississippi Railroad.
Clark & Morrison v. Page et al. arose out of a dispute between stockholders of the railroad and officers of the firm
of Page & Bacon who were also on the board of the railroad. After the Page & Bacon
officers took possession of the railroad and advertised it for sale in the summer
of 1855, the stockholders, Henry A. Clark and James L. D. Morrison, filed suit seeking a receiver to manage the railroad’s business and an injunction
to prevent its sale. When the case was first heard in Macoupin County Circuit Court
in September 1855 Lincoln was also involved, as an attorney for the defendants. As
of the date of this letter to Koerner, the case had been continued multiple times,
including most recently in May 1857. By the time the case finally concluded in favor
of the plaintiffs in December 1859, Lincoln had ceased to be involved. Lincoln had
written to Koerner regarding their respective fees in Clark & Morrison v. Page et al. in 1856, but no further correspondence between the two regarding the case has been
located.
Bacon v. Ohio & Mississippi RR, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, 2d edition (Springfield: Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, 2009), https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=137508; “Cognovit Note,” Reference, Glossary, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al.,
eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Reference.aspx?ref=Reference%20html%20files/Glossary.html; Daniel W. Stowell et al., eds., The Papers of Abraham Lincoln: Legal Documents and Cases (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008), 3:149-92; Clark & Morrison v. Page et al., Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=135851; The Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology of the Life of Abraham Lincoln, 6 September 1855, https://thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1855-09-06.
4A quo warranto is a writ issued to halt the exercise of an unlawfully-held office.
The phrase translates literally as “by what authority”, and such a writ orders a sheriff
to summon the individual before the court to demonstrate under what authority their
occupation of an office is legitimate.
The quo warranto case Lincoln refers to which was pending in Sangamon County Circuit
Court was People ex rel. Koerner et al. v. Ridgely et al. In 1848, Governor Augustus C. French had appointed Nicholas H. Ridgely, Uri Manley, and John Calhoun as trustees of the remaining assets of the liquidated State Bank of Illinois. Governor William H. Bissell subsequently removed the men from the position of trustees in 1857 and appointed
Koerner, George T. Brown, and Richard Yates in their stead. Ridgely, Manley, and Calhoun, however, refused to relinquish their
positions, and the state of Illinois, in the interest of Bissell’s appointees, retained
Lincoln and Herndon to sue in an action of quo warranto to remove them. The case was
called in Sangamon County Circuit Court on August 11, 1857, and continued. Lincoln
wrote again to Koerner later in 1857 requesting permission to delay the case until a subsequent
Illinois Supreme Court term. The case was decided in Sangamon County Circuit Court
on November 15, 1858, in favor of the defendants. The case was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court where it was heard on January 24, 1859. The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s
decision, with Justice Sidney Breese ruling that the trusteeships were not technically offices and thus could not be subject
to a quo warranto action.
“Quo Warranto,” Reference, Glossary, Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds.,
The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Reference.aspx?ref=Reference%20html%20files/Glossary.html; People ex rel. Koerner et al. v. Ridgely et al., Martha L. Benner and Cullom Davis et al., eds., The Law Practice of Abraham Lincoln: Complete Documentary Edition, https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=140181; https://lawpracticeofabrahamlincoln.org/Details.aspx?case=140182; The Lincoln Log: A Daily Chronology of the Life of Abraham Lincoln, 11 August 1857, https://thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1857-08-11; 15 November 1858, https://thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1858-11-15; 24 January 1859, https://thelincolnlog.org/Results.aspx?type=CalendarDay&day=1859-01-24.
Autograph Letter Signed, 2 page(s), Huntington Library (San Marino, CA).