Before I proceed to business, I must account for my long but involuntary silence. During the second day of the April term of this Court, I was, whilst on the Bench, attacked by a violent pleuresy which terminated the Session, as it had nearly done the life of your friend. I anticipated that event myself, as did most of my friends. But the skill of my physician, aided by the goodness of Providence restored me, after a long confinement, to such a degree of health as permitted me to return home; and after remaining there a few weeks, I visited the mountainous parts of Virga where, with the assistance of the Shannondale waters, I recovered a better state of health than I have enjoyed for many years. Thus you percieve my dear Sir, that I was cut down too early in the Session of the Court to have any thing to communicate of a legal character to you. I heard with great pleasure when I got to Trenton [N.J.] that your ejection from the Stage had been attended by no ill consequences, and that you had proceeded upon your Journey. I wish with all my heart, that you would abandon Stage travelling, and take a hack as I have done for many years past. you will find the superior comforts & safety of such a carriage more than a compensation for the differe[n]ce in the time of completing your Journeys. I now proceed to report such of the Cases decided at this term as can be stated within a moderate compass.

Den. ex dem. the State of N. Jersey, & Mr Gale vs. Babcock— removed from the Sup. Crt of N. Jersey to the C.C. upon the petition of deft. The Court refused to docket the cause upon the ground of want of Jurisdiction as to the State, the Judiciary law not having conferred it, and the cause not being divisible in respect to the other lessor. Consider this, & let me hear your opinion— M<y> first impression was different from the ultimate decision. Remanded.

—

Beardsley vs. Torrey. This was an Ejectment, which was served on the tenant of the deft who on his petition was admitted a defendant, but not in the room of the tenant. The Suit being brought in the State Court, was upon the petition of Torrey, a Citizen of Massachussetts, removed onto the C.C. The Court remanded the cause upon the ground, that as it had not Jurisd. in respect to the tenant, a Citizen of this state, as is the plf., it cant entertain Jurisdiction at all of the cause.

—

Bushby vs. Camac—Action on a Judgt in the Exchequer of Ireland on a bond for so much Sterling executed in London but payable in Ireland with a power of attorney to confess Judgt in Ireland—Decided that the debt is to be considered as due in british, not Irish Sterling, but being made paybl. in Ireland, the Judgt is to carry Irish interest—2 Burr. 1084.

—

Toler vs. Armstrong— The plf. & deft both had goods imported in the George (of famous memory) from N. Brunswick, during the war, collusively captured as the Sup. Crt decided. The goods belonging to A. were consigned to T. to be forwarded to A.—at the request of A. & upon his engagement to indemnify & reimburse T., the latter entered into the admiralty Stipulations on the goods being delivered up, & for various expenses incurred on account of the defts goods & paid by plf. this action was brought—objected that the action being founded in a fraudulent transaction & breach of law, it cant be supported. The Court stated the general rule of law to be that where Contract grows immediately out of & is connected with an illegal or immoral Act, the Law will not aid the enforcement of it; & even if it be in part only connected with such act, but growing immediately out of it, the[n] it be in fact a new Contract the law is the same. But if the premise be unconnected with the illegal Act, & is founded on a new Considera[tion] it is not tainted by such illegal Act, 'tho it was known to the plf. & tho he was the contriver & conducter of the illegal Act— As if in this Case, T. having no interest in the defts goods, had with a view to his one interest in the Cargo contrived the mode of illegally introducing them into the United States. As there is a writ of error in this last case, I mention it, not to hear your opinion, but that you may turn it in your mind.

—

McCullough vs. Girard— The plf. intending to subscribe for a part of the unsubscribed Shares of the bank of the U.S. the deft agreed by parol on Septr 1810 that if the plf. would not subscribe, he would take the whole unsubscribed shares (30,000) and would let the plf. in; in like manner in all respects as if he were an actual subscriber for the number of shares he wanted, & he gave a printed note used by deft as applicable to all his dispositions of shares in the bank, filled up to transfer to plf. so many shares to plf. as soon as the books should be open. The Specie was paid & funded Stock instalment transferred to deft before the 1st of October, & the question was whether plf. or deft was entitled to the interest on the stock due the 1st of Octr, the Bank having withdrawn her claim to it by certain acts after the institution went into operation in Novr following. The Court decided 1st, that evidence of the parol agreement might be given, the written promise to transfer appearing manifestly to have been intended, not to evidence that agreement, but as a part performance of it, so far as that could be done before transfers of shares could be made—2dly That the plf. ought to be considered precisely in the same situation as if he had been a subscriber, in which case he wd have been entitled to the October interest, which, having been recieved by the deft, he is liable to pay it with interest to plf.—Verd. accord.

—

Kemmel vs. Wilson. If the debtor assign Judgments & recognizances to his Creditor, as collateral security, the Creditor may sue for his original debt, at any time, unless restrained by some agreement, & is not bound to collect, or to proceed to recover the amount of the securities.

—

Bobysall vs. Oppenheimer[.] Rule by deft to enter an exoneretur on bail bond on the ground of a discharge under the insolvent law of this State, long after an Assignment of the bail bond & Suit brought on it. 2d Rule To stay proceedings in the bail bond, the deft agreeing to confess Judgt, (the suit was brought to april last) and to surrender himself in custody. Per. Cur. This Court has never gone farther than to allow the plf. at the return of the writ, to appear on Com. bail, if he had been discharged under an insolvent law. But an exoneretur will not be entered on that ground after a new Contract has been entered into by the appearance bail, and his bond assigned to the plf., having been forfeited. Were this provided for in express terms by the insolvent law, I should question its validity. The first rule discharged— As to the second rule, the Court will not fix the bail below, if the plf. has not lost a trial, but will stay proceedings on the bail bond on payment of Costs, putting in & perfecting bail, and confessing Judgment at this term. In this Case, the bail below entered themselves bail above, but being excepted to, refused, or were unable, to Justify. The Court will not relieve the appearance bail upon any other terms than putting in sufficient bail by the deft— It is not sufficient to surrender the bail—5 Burr. 2683—1 East 383— If the deft were surrend[er]ed by his Special bail, we should not discharge him under the insolvent law.

—

Legget vs. Steel—Dower bill agt the alienee of the husband, who greatly improved the land—The plfs. right to dower admitted—Decreed 1/3 of the land according to its value when aliened by the husband. Que. if the widow is alotted to damages from the time dower was demanded? & to Costs? The parties compromised, the plf. agreeing to accept damages from time the bill was filed, but without Costs.

Dodge vs. Israel—Comm. to take depositions abroad was decided to be improperly executed & the deposition over ruled, 1st because the general interrogatory was not answered—2d That the deposition was committed to writing and signed by the witness before the Oath was administered. 3d The exhibits referred to by a witness in his deposition must be identified by the Commissioners or they will not be regarded, tho they come in the envelope with the Commission. It was also laid down as a rule of practice, that if the plf. is compelled to suffer a nonsuit, or the deft a verdict agt him on account of formal objections to the execution of a Commission which the opposite party might have communicated before the trial to have another Commission executed in time, the Court will take off the Nonsuit or award a new trial without Costs.

Lessee of Lanning vs. London—Rule to show Cause why a new trial shd not be granted— The Judges were divided—Decided 1st that this is not a Case to be certified to the Sup. Crt—2d The rule is to be discharged, the Court considering it substantially a motion, & improperly brought forward in the form of a rule to show Cause.

Pendleton vs. Evans—In equity—motion to take the bill pro Confesso, no answer having been filed agreable to the 6th rule prescribed by the S.C.—decided that the motion is premature, the deft not having been ruled to answer & the month expired, according to the 17th rule, and because the cause was not set down, according to the practice of the English Chancery.

There were many other Cases decided, but it would take too much room to state the facts.

What think you of the proceedings in the Sup. Crt last March, after your departure, in the cases of Evans?¹ I understand that Judge Duval stated the impropriety of Mr Harpers motion after three of the Members of the majority had departed, & therefore left it to the remaining member, the Chief Justice, who most unaccountably agreed, as I understand, that the Judgment of Affirmance should not be entered, but that the case shd be suspended, on the motion, to be heard in february. The introduction of this novel practice will render it necessary for the Judges to continue on their posts 'till the final adjournment.

    Hoping that this will find you & your family well, & will soon procure me the pleasure of an answer. I remain very sincerely, My dear Sir yr friend & affect. Servt