Your letter of the 11th July found me upon a bed of sickness, from which I was not very soon relieved. I had scarcely become convalescent, before others of my family were taken down— finally, I determined to abandon the Country, which was becoming universally sickly, and to take refuge with Mrs W. in this place, which has, thus far, been unusually healthy. I trouble you with this account of my past troubles, as it furnishes the only legitimate apology for my long Silence since the rect of your favor.

your reasons for condemning my opinion in the Case of the U.S. bank vs. Jones¹ as to the effect of state laws upon contracts made in the state, respecting evidence affecting them, are so satisfactory, that I unite heartily in the condemnation. If state laws in relation to property afford rules for the federal Courts, which they are bound to observe, (of which there can be no doubt) similar law as to evidence in relation to property, ought to be equally obligatory. State laws prescribing rules of practice are open to different consideration.   

you agree with me that, by the law mercht, a protest of a note of hand is not an official act, & therefore that it is not evidence of demand & notice upon general principles of law. after I gave that opinion in the above Case, the bar informed me that the law was so understood in Pennsylva. and what put my mind at ease as to its correctness was a similar decision, as Mr Sergeant stated, at the last supreme Court of the U.S.— You may then imagine my astonishment a few days ago, when a gentleman presented me with a copy of that opinion, furnished him by Mr Wheaton, in which, the decision was directly otherwise. It was the Case of Nickolls vs. Webb from Luisiana, I think, decided whilst I was sick in Alexa.— Do you recollect any thing of it?

As to the question of the irresponsibility of the Sureties of postmasters on the ground of negligence in the Post master general, my present impressions must be much changed if your & my opinion should differ.

Some of the Cases which you report are important and difficult. Some of the points are new to me— Three or four others I have heretofore decided precisely in the same way, and I can very conscientiously add that I am not disposed to question the correctness of any of them. U.S. vs. Elliot, Flanders vs. Ætna insur. Co. & Willard & wife vs. Dorr are of the second description as to many of the points decided in them. The Case of the Brig Alexander presents a question which has never been presented to me in my Circuit, & depending upon acts of Congress which I cannot now look into, I can form no opinion on it— I doubt not however that your construction is the correct one. I should be much pleased to read your opinion in Gardner vs. Potter, which seems to have been brim full of law & equity upon which you seem to have feasted your mind luxuriously. I am truly impatient for Masons next volume which, from my knowledge of the high respect in which your opinions are held by the bar in my Circuit, will I know give great Satisfaction there.

I congratulate you sincerely upon the appointment of brother Thompson to the S.C. bench. I know it gives no small degree of satisfaction to you and our chief. I shall leave this the 20th on my Circuit—adieu my dear sir—believe me truly yr friend & affect. Servt