![LINCOLN, Abraham. Autograph document signed ("Logan, Lincoln & Herndon, for Complainant"), CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 936 WORDS IN LINCOLN'S HAND, n.p. [Springfield, Illinois], n.d. [docketed "Filed" 10 June 1854]. 3¼ pages, folio, 355 x 217mm., written on rectos only of four sheets of pale blue legal paper, docketed on verso of last page by Lincoln, slight browning along edges and some folds, neat repairs to folds on versos, otherwise fine.](https://www.christies.com.cn/img/LotImages/2000/NYR/2000_NYR_09364_0085_000(011317).jpg?w=1)
Details
LINCOLN, Abraham. Autograph document signed ("Logan, Lincoln & Herndon, for Complainant"), CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 936 WORDS IN LINCOLN'S HAND, n.p. [Springfield, Illinois], n.d. [docketed "Filed" 10 June 1854]. 3¼ pages, folio, 355 x 217mm., written on rectos only of four sheets of pale blue legal paper, docketed on verso of last page by Lincoln, slight browning along edges and some folds, neat repairs to folds on versos, otherwise fine.
A REMARKABLY LENGTHY BILL IN CHANCERY, 1854
An unusually long and detailed legal document, headed "To the Honorable the Judge of the Sangamon County Circuit Court in Chancery sitting," in which Lincoln presents his client's position in a land dispute. After briefly serving in Congress, Lincoln had returned to Springfield, Illinois in 1849 and resumed his very successful practice of the law in partnership with William H. Herndon (1818-1891). Here, Lincoln spells out the case of his client, Peter Van Bergen, against James M. Singleton. Van Bergen is "Humbly complaining...that sometime in the year 1848, he furnished to one James W. Singleton the sum of five hundred dollars [to] be...invested in the purchase of lands for the joint benefit of said Singelton and your orator." Singleton did in fact make the purchase--though only in his name--of approximately 1360 acres of land in Brown County (Lincoln lists the exact lots). Lincoln argues that Singleton failed to give a precise account of the transaction to his client, who subsequently learned "from other sources" that the amount of the lands purchased was only $159.00. He further charges that "said Singleton has never conveyed to him any part of said lands, nor has ever, paid over to your orator any money as the proceeds of sales of said lands or any part thereof, nor has ever in any way accounted for said lands..." In addition, Lincoln contends that Singleton "entered into a contract with your orator, in relation to a large amount of other lands...Your orator charges that, besides the sum of [$1464]," though, "he did, about one year afterwards, pay to said Singleton the further sum of [$600], as a direct advance upon the contract." When Singleton did sign over some of the land, Van Bergen charges, the division was questionable; Singleton maintained their value was "equal to one half of the whole; but which your orator insists was not...by at least $920.00." Lincoln asks that Singleton be ordered to settle his account with his client, Van Bergen, and that any contract of partnership between the two men be dissolved.
Lincoln also filed an amended bill in chancery in the case of Van Bergen vs. Singleton on 17 August 1855. Lincoln's long-time relations with Peter Van Bergen are of some interest. Van Bergen had been involved in the complex transactions surrounding the failed general store in New Salem in which Lincoln, Berry and Greene had been partners; he sued Lincoln and the partners in April 1834 and in November obtained a judgement against Lincoln which resulted in the seizure of Lincoln's horse, saddle, bridle and surveying instruments.
A REMARKABLY LENGTHY BILL IN CHANCERY, 1854
An unusually long and detailed legal document, headed "To the Honorable the Judge of the Sangamon County Circuit Court in Chancery sitting," in which Lincoln presents his client's position in a land dispute. After briefly serving in Congress, Lincoln had returned to Springfield, Illinois in 1849 and resumed his very successful practice of the law in partnership with William H. Herndon (1818-1891). Here, Lincoln spells out the case of his client, Peter Van Bergen, against James M. Singleton. Van Bergen is "Humbly complaining...that sometime in the year 1848, he furnished to one James W. Singleton the sum of five hundred dollars [to] be...invested in the purchase of lands for the joint benefit of said Singelton and your orator." Singleton did in fact make the purchase--though only in his name--of approximately 1360 acres of land in Brown County (Lincoln lists the exact lots). Lincoln argues that Singleton failed to give a precise account of the transaction to his client, who subsequently learned "from other sources" that the amount of the lands purchased was only $159.00. He further charges that "said Singleton has never conveyed to him any part of said lands, nor has ever, paid over to your orator any money as the proceeds of sales of said lands or any part thereof, nor has ever in any way accounted for said lands..." In addition, Lincoln contends that Singleton "entered into a contract with your orator, in relation to a large amount of other lands...Your orator charges that, besides the sum of [$1464]," though, "he did, about one year afterwards, pay to said Singleton the further sum of [$600], as a direct advance upon the contract." When Singleton did sign over some of the land, Van Bergen charges, the division was questionable; Singleton maintained their value was "equal to one half of the whole; but which your orator insists was not...by at least $920.00." Lincoln asks that Singleton be ordered to settle his account with his client, Van Bergen, and that any contract of partnership between the two men be dissolved.
Lincoln also filed an amended bill in chancery in the case of Van Bergen vs. Singleton on 17 August 1855. Lincoln's long-time relations with Peter Van Bergen are of some interest. Van Bergen had been involved in the complex transactions surrounding the failed general store in New Salem in which Lincoln, Berry and Greene had been partners; he sued Lincoln and the partners in April 1834 and in November obtained a judgement against Lincoln which resulted in the seizure of Lincoln's horse, saddle, bridle and surveying instruments.