Your three letters of the 25th Jany, 6 & 22d february have been recd, but not duly, the first written having been detained at the Alexandria post office until three days ago, when it was forwarded to me. As to the one containing observations upon the case of Conn. vs. Penn., I must postpone an answer until I can look again over my notes, which I left at Mount Vernon, as also the opinion in extenso. It will be necessary also to read carefully over the opinion delivered by this Court during the present Session in the Case of Kirk vs. Penn., which may have no inconsiderable bearing on the equity Case. By the bye, I was much astonished at the information given you by your Son respecting that decision, and I am quite at a loss to account for Mr Websters mistake. The opinion affirms & maintains every part of the charge, and is that of every Judge on the Bench, except Mr Johnson, who differed from his brethren, to use his own expression, toto cœlo. When we meet, we must read over that opinion with great care to see how far it may be construed to influence the equity Case. I heard it read twice, and could percieve no principle in it which bears upon the questions of overplus land, and the price of lands to which late were acquired after 1762; but I may possibly have misconcieved it.

I write in great haste having to consider a number of cases which have been argued & are yet undetermined— The C. Justice will return today to the Bench—Believe me, My dear Sir, most truly Yr Affect. & faithful Servt