I received your letter expressing your wish to know the principle decided in the case of the Bank of the U.S. v Dandridge’s securities. The case will be carried before the Supreme court & I am very glad of it, as the law on the subject ought to be settled.

The act incorporating the Bank directs that every cashier of a Branch Bank shall before he enters on the duties of his office give bond with security to be approved by the President & Directors in a penalty not less than $50000 for the faithful performance of his duty.

This bond is in the penalty of $50000, & the plea of non est factum was pleaded. On the trial of this issue the signature of the Obligor was proved and the plaintiff at first rested his cause on this testimony. The defendants insisted that this would not be sufficient in any case, but if in general sufficient, would not be so in this case, the plaintiff being the Bank of the United States.

The cause was argued at great length & with great ability. I was of opinion that in the case of an individual obligee, the possession of the bond & the suit upon it were prima facie evidence that the bond was delivered <an>d received by him; but that it was otherwise in the case of <the> Bank of the U.S.

I thought the assent of the Bank Directors indispensable to the completion of the bonds, and that consent I thought could be given only at the board, and could be proved only by the minutes of their proceedings. The board must keep a record of all their proceedings, they can speak or act only in writing, and their proceedings can be proved only by their record. I found it impossible to comprehend how the board could act, or how its acts could be proved otherwise than by its record.

My first impression was different, but I changed that first impression on reflection. My mind was forcibly attracted to the point by the nature of the testimony. The bond was executed by the obligors at different times and remained in possession of Mr Dandridge who was performing the duties of the office before it was signed by the last obligor. The breaches were some of them very probably committed before it was fully executed, certainly before it was seen by the obligees. Indeed the probability was that it was never seen by them until Mr Dandridge was removed from office. It was easy to foresee that if the bond went before the jury I should be required to say when it became obligatory & what breaches it covered. It could not take effect from its date because its execution was at a subsequent period & it was not then received. What then was the criterion of its obligation? The more I thought on the subject the more <wa>s I convinced that the acceptance of the bond must be proved by the minutes of the board, & I stopped it on its way to the jury.

I had no doubt but that the board of the mother bank might empower the board of the Branch Bank to approve & receive the bond, but the minutes were as essential to the establishment of this fact as of the approbation & reception by themselves.

I have reflected a good deal on the subject of the Life & have come to the conclusion to separate the introduction from the other volumes & to publish a small edition of it at my own risk if I may be permitted to do so by Mr Wayne & yourself without being charged with the copy right. As it is considered rather as incumbrance on the residue of the work I presume there will be no objection to this. If I may be permitted to do so, I will thank you to enquire of Mr Small on what terms I can get 500, or 1000, copies printed & in boards, and on what terms bound in the usual way.

You have given no answer to my enquiries¹ respecting that part of the corresponde<nce> was copied in Richmond & left with you. <mutilated> you to notice this subject & also to say in what arrangement the letters ought to be published. Is not the order of their dates to be preferred to the books from which they are copied? If so a new arrangement of them all must be made.

With the best wishes for your health and happiness I am my dear Sir yours affectionately