http://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Mnumberger&feedformat=atomWythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T18:18:45ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.27.5http://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Britton&diff=73236Britton2023-04-05T18:58:20Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by John le Breton */ typo in Brunner's title</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Britton''}}<br />
===by John le Breton===<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=BretonBritton1640.jpg<br />
|link=https://wm.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01COWM_INST/g9pr7p/alma991016712429703196<br />
|shorttitle=Britton<br />
|author=[[:Category:John le Breton|John le Breton]]<br />
|edition=Second edition faithfully corrected according to divers ancient manuscripts of the same booke by Edm. Wingate, Gent.<br />
|lang=[[:Category:French|Law French]]<br />
|publoc=[[:Category:London|London]]<br />
|publisher=Printed by the assignes of John Moore Esquire<br />
|year=1640<br />
|desc=[[:Category:Octavos|8vo]] (15 cm.) <br />
|pages=[16], 287 [i.e. 291], [21] leaves<br />
|shelf=F-1<br />
}}Attributed to [[wikipedia:John de Breton|John le Breton]] (sometimes John de Breton, John Bretun, Brito, or Britton; d. 1275), but largely based on the practical parts on ''[[De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae]]'' (1250-1260) by [[wikipedia:Henry de Bracton|Henry de Bracton]] with the addition of such statutes and legal changes as were necessary to bring Bracton's law up to date.<ref>William Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law'', 4th ed. (London: Methuen & Co., Sweet and Maxwell, 1936), 2:320.</ref> The origins of Britton may be traced to a project of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_I_of_England Edward I] to produce a digest of the English law in the spirit of Justinian's [[wikipedia:Institutes of Justinian|''Institutes'']]. Britton's book, first published in 1540, is the earliest English law book in the French language.<ref>Heinrich Brunner, ''The Sources of the Law of England: An Historical Introduction to the Study of English Law'', trans. W. Hastie (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888), 29.</ref><br />
{{BookPageBookplate<br />
|imagename=BretonBritton1640BookplateCropped.jpg<br />
|display=left<br />
|caption=Bookplate of John Harward from front pastedown.<br />
}}<div style="overflow: hidden;"><br />
<blockquote><br />
John le Breton, justice and bishop of Hereford, was chosen bishop from among the canons of Hereford in January 1269 and was consecrated on 2 June of that year. On his death in 1275 certain chronicles describe him as an 'expert in English laws, who had written a book about them called le Bretoun'. The bishop could not in fact have written Britton in the version in which it has survived, because this third full-scale treatise on English law to survive (along with Bracton and [[wikipedia:Fleta|Fleta]]) from the thirteenth century refers to statutes made up to fifteen years after his death, and the question is why he should have been credited with its authorship. [[wikipedia:John Selden|John Selden]] argued in the seventeenth century that the bishop had been confused with the contemporary judge Henry of Bracton, the supposed author of the great treatise ''De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae'', of which the untitled Britton might be regarded as a condensation. Selden observed that the words attributing the book to John le Breton do not appear in most of the annals recording the bishop's death, and believed that they were a much later interpolation 'by some smatterer' in those few manuscripts of the [[wikipedia:Flores Historiarum|Flores historiarum]] in which they do appear.<ref>Alan Harding, "[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/3340 Breton, John le (d. 1275)]" in ''Oxford Dictionary of National Biography'', accessed June 6, 2013.</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
</div><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Ordered by Wythe from John Norton & Sons in a letter dated May 29, 1772. Records indicate the order was fulfilled.<ref>Frances Norton Mason, ed., ''John Norton & Sons, Merchants of London and Virginia: Being the Papers from their Counting House for the Years 1750 to 1795'' (Richmond, Virginia: Dietz Press, 1937), 242-243. The letter is endorsed "Virga. 29 May 1772 / George Wythe / Recd. 21 September / Goods Entr. pa. 163/ Ans. the March 1773."</ref> Three of the Wythe Collection sources (Dean's Memo<ref>[[Dean Bibliography|Memorandum from Barbara C. Dean]], Colonial Williamsburg Found., to Mrs. Stiverson, Colonial Williamsburg Found. (June 16, 1975), 7 (on file at Wolf Law Library, College of William & Mary).</ref>, Brown's Bibliography<ref>Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433.</ref> and [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s.v. "[http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe Member: George Wythe]," accessed on June 28, 2013.</ref> on LibraryThing) list the 1640 edition as the probable one owned by Wythe. The fourth lists the date as "164?."<ref>Mary R. M. Goodwin, ''[http://research.history.org/DigitalLibrary/View/index.cfm?doc=ResearchReports\RR0216.xml The George Wythe House: Its Furniture and Furnishings]'' (Williamsburg, Virginia: Colonial Williamsburg Foundation Library, 1958), XLVI.</ref> Thomas Jefferson owned this edition and sold it to the Library of Congress in 1815.<ref>E. Millicent Sowerby, ''Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson'', (Washington, D.C.: The Library of Congress, 1952-1959), 2:214 [[http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015033648109;view=1up;seq=228 no.1773]].</ref> The Wolf Law Library purchased a copy of the 1640 edition.<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
<br /><br />
{{BookPageInscription<br />
|imagename=BretonBritton1640InscriptionCropped.jpg<br />
|display=center<br />
|caption=Previous owner's inscription "Robert J. F. Meyricke, from GH., March 1910" from front fly leaf.<br />
}}<br />
Small octavo bound in full antique calf with original backstrip laid on. Spine features raised bands and a gilt-lettered morocco label. Includes the armorial bookplate of John Harward on the front pastedown and previous owner's inscription "Robert J. F. Meyricke, from GH., March 1910" on the front fly leaf. Purchased from Roger Middleton Fine and Rare Books.<br />
<br />
Images of the library's copy of this book are [https://www.flickr.com/photos/wolflawlibrary/sets/72157637877799896 available on Flickr.] View the record for this book in [https://wm.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01COWM_INST/g9pr7p/alma991016712429703196 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[George Wythe Room]]<br />
*[[Wythe's Library]]<br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
Read this book in [http://books.google.com/books?id=AKszAQAAMAAJ Google Books.]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
[[Category:English Law]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:John le Breton]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]<br />
<br />
[[Category:French]]<br />
[[Category:London]]<br />
[[Category:Octavos]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59486Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T22:04:19Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P2.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1782]]<br />
[[File:ReceiptOrandorfVWelch12May1795.jpg|thumb|right|300px|John Littlejohn's Receipt of Payment by Orandorf, Witnessed by Marshall, 13 May 1785]]<br />
<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery in 1792.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. According to the court clerk's handwritten notes, the case was subsequently continued until September 1792, when Welch's representatives filed an answer and were awarded a general commission to take testimony.<ref>''Id.''</ref><br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
<br />
According to John Marshall's Account Books, Marshall received four separate payments from 1790-1795 for his representation of Christian Orandorf in this matter. The first payment of £5 is listed as having been received on May 21, 1790,<ref> Accounts: 1790, Receipts, May 21st, Orendorf v. Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 393.</ref> suggesting that Marshall may have represented Orandorf in the Berkeley County Clerk. After filing Orandorf's Petition of Appeal in 1792, Marshall received a payment of £6.<ref> Accounts: 1792, Receipts, February, Orandorf v Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 433.</ref> Marshall's Account Book for 1795 indicate that Marshall received two payments related to this matter that year, first in March 1795 for £3<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, March, Littlejohn v Cookus (in Orandorf v Cookus), ''supra'' note 2, at 487.</ref> and next in May 1795 for £30.<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, May, Orandorf, ''supra'' note 2, at 489.</ref> This final payment was received around the time that Marshall witnessed a receipt dated May 13, 1795, indicating that Christian and Stuffell Orandorf had paid the administrator of Welch's estate, John Littlejohn, £66 11s. 1d. This receipt suggests that Orandorf lost his case against Welch on appeal. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
To the Honble the Judge of the High court of Chancery humbly complaining sheweth unto your Honor your <s>orator</s> petitioner christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
That the annexed record shews the proceedings against your orator & the representa-tives of Henry Cookus in the county court of Berkley at the suit of the representatives of Michael Welch and whereby a property fairly purchased by your <s>orator</s> is taken from him & a firm contract set aside without any process having been served upon him. Your <s>orator</s> petitioner is advised that there is manifest error in the said decree in this, that even admitting your petitioner to have been a non resident which is not the fact nor does your petitioner think it appears so on the record, no time is allowed your petitioner to set aside the decree as is directed by law in case of decrees against non residents nor are the complainants used to give any security on the want of setting aside the decree. For these & other obvious reasons your petitioner humbly prays that his appeal from the said decree may be received & that a supersedeas may issue to supersede & reverse the same And your petitioner will ever pray &c <br />
<br />
Christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
The petition of appeal is allowed; the petitioner entering into bond, with surety, in the penalty of one hundred pounds; and a supersedeas is awarded <br />
<br />
18 Feb. 1791 [sic] G. Wythe<br />
<br />
4/8<br />
<br />
Orandorf <br />
<br />
vs } Paper's <br />
<br />
Welche's admors<br />
<br />
March 1792 dock. & Cont.<br />
<br />
May -- Cont.<br />
<br />
Sept. - Entg decree -- ans^r filed<br />
<br />
cause retained & Ge Coms aw^d<br />
<br />
Filed February 18^th 1792<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
Recieved from Christian & Stuffell Orrindroff Sixty Eight pounds Eleven shill. and one penney for and on account of the Estate of Henry Cookus [and?] the above being [Poss^or?] [Cred?] <br />
<br />
John Littlejohn <br />
<br />
Adm^or of Mich^l Welch <br />
<br />
May 13th 1795<br />
<br />
Teste<br />
<br />
J Marshall<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59484Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T22:03:42Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P2.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1782]]<br />
[[File:ReceiptOrandorfVWelch12May1795.jpg|thumb|right|300px|John Littlejohn's Receipt of Payment by Orandorf, Witnessed by Marshall, 13 May 1785]]<br />
<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery in 1792.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. According to the court clerk's handwritten notes, the case was subsequently continued until September 1792, when Welch's representatives filed an answer and were awarded a general commission to take testimony.<ref>''Id.''</ref><br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
<br />
According to John Marshall's Account Books, Marshall received four separate payments from 1790-1795 for his representation of Christian Orandorf in this matter. The first payment of £5 is listed as having been received on May 21, 1790,<ref> Accounts: 1790, Receipts, May 21st, Orendorf v. Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 393.</ref> suggesting that Marshall may have represented Orandorf in the Berkeley County Clerk. After filing Orandorf's Petition of Appeal in 1792, Marshall received a payment of £6.<ref> Accounts: 1792, Receipts, February, Orandorf v Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 433.</ref> Marshall's Account Book for 1795 indicate that Marshall received two payments related to this matter that year, first in March 1795 for £3<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, March, Littlejohn v Cookus (in Orandorf v Cookus), ''supra'' note 2, at 487.</ref> and next in May 1795 for £30.<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, May, Orandorf, ''supra'' note 2, at 489.</ref> This final payment was received around the time that Marshall witnessed a receipt dated May 13, 1795, indicating that Christian and Stuffell Orandorf had paid the administrator of Welch's estate, John Littlejohn, £66 11s. 1d. This receipt suggests that Orandorf lost his case against Welch on appeal. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
To the Honble the Judge of the High court of Chancery humbly complaining sheweth unto your Honor your <s>orator</s> petitioner christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
That the annexed record shews the proceedings against your orator & the representa-tives of Henry Cookus in the county court of Berkley at the suit of the representatives of Michael Welch and whereby a property fairly purchased by your <s>orator</s> is taken from him & a firm contract set aside without any process having been served upon him. Your <s>orator</s> petitioner is advised that there is manifest error in the said decree in this, that even admitting your petitioner to have been a non resident which is not the fact nor does your petitioner think it appears so on the record, no time is allowed your petitioner to set aside the decree as is directed by law in case of decrees against non residents nor are the complainants used to give any security on the want of setting aside the decree. For these & other obvious reasons your petitioner humbly prays that his appeal from the said decree may be received & that a supersedeas may issue to supersede & reverse the same And your petitioner will ever pray &c <br />
<br />
Christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
The petition of appeal is allowed; the petitioner entering into bond, with surety, in the penalty of one hundred pounds; and a supersedeas is awarded <br />
<br />
18 Feb. 1791 [sic] G. Wythe<br />
<br />
4/8<br />
Orandorf <br />
vs } Paper's <br />
Welche's admors<br />
March 1792 dock. & Cont.<br />
<br />
May -- Cont.<br />
<br />
Sept. - Entg decree -- ans^r filed<br />
<br />
cause retained & Ge Coms aw^d<br />
<br />
Filed February 18^th 1792<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
Recieved from Christian & Stuffell Orrindroff Sixty Eight pounds Eleven shill. and one penney for and on account of the Estate of Henry Cookus [and?] the above being [Poss^or?] [Cred?] <br />
<br />
John Littlejohn <br />
<br />
Adm^or of Mich^l Welch <br />
<br />
May 13th 1795<br />
<br />
Teste<br />
<br />
J Marshall<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59420Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T20:20:36Z<p>Mnumberger: Adding TOC and additional images</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P2.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1782]]<br />
[[File:ReceiptOrandorfVWelch12May1795.jpg|thumb|right|300px|John Littlejohn's Receipt of Payment by Orandorf, Witnessed by Marshall, 13 May 1785]]<br />
<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery in 1792.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. According to the court clerk's handwritten notes, the case was subsequently continued until September 1792, when Welch's representatives filed an answer and were awarded a general commission to take testimony.<ref>''Id.''</ref><br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
<br />
According to John Marshall's Account Books, Marshall received four separate payments from 1790-1795 for his representation of Christian Orandorf in this matter. The first payment of £5 is listed as having been received on May 21, 1790,<ref> Accounts: 1790, Receipts, May 21st, Orendorf v. Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 393.</ref> suggesting that Marshall may have represented Orandorf in the Berkeley County Clerk. After filing Orandorf's Petition of Appeal in 1792, Marshall received a payment of £6.<ref> Accounts: 1792, Receipts, February, Orandorf v Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 433.</ref> Marshall's Account Book for 1795 indicate that Marshall received two payments related to this matter that year, first in March 1795 for £3<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, March, Littlejohn v Cookus (in Orandorf v Cookus), ''supra'' note 2, at 487.</ref> and next in May 1795 for £30.<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, May, Orandorf, ''supra'' note 2, at 489.</ref> This final payment was received around the time that Marshall witnessed a receipt dated May 13, 1795, indicating that Christian and Stuffell Orandorf had paid the administrator of Welch's estate, John Littlejohn, £66 11s. 1d. This receipt suggests that Orandorf lost his case against Welch on appeal. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
To the Honble the Judge of the High court of Chancery humbly complaining sheweth unto your Honor your <s>orator</s> petitioner christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
That the annexed record shews the proceedings against your orator & the representa-tives of Henry Cookus in the county court of Berkley at the suit of the representatives of Michael Welch and whereby a property fairly purchased by your <s>orator</s> is taken from him & a firm contract set aside without any process having been served upon him. Your <s>orator</s> petitioner is advised that there is manifest error in the said decree in this, that even admitting your petitioner to have been a non resident which is not the fact nor does your petitioner think it appears so on the record, no time is allowed your petitioner to set aside the decree as is directed by law in case of decrees against non residents nor are the complainants used to give any security on the want of setting aside the decree. For these & other obvious reasons your petitioner humbly prays that his appeal from the said decree may be received & that a supersedeas may issue to supersede & reverse the same And your petitioner will ever pray &c <br />
<br />
Christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
The petition of appeal is allowed; the petitioner entering into bond, with surety, in the penalty of one hundred pounds; and a supersedeas is awarded <br />
<br />
18 Feb. 1791 [sic] G. Wythe<br />
<br />
4/8<br />
Orandorf <br />
vs } Paper's <br />
Welche's admors<br />
March 1792 dock. & Cont.<br />
<br />
May -- Cont.<br />
<br />
Sept. - Entg decree -- ans^r filed<br />
<br />
cause retained & Ge Coms aw^d<br />
<br />
Filed February 18^th 1792<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
Recieved from Christian & Stuffell Orrindroff Sixty Eight pounds Eleven shill. and one penney for and on account of the Estate of Henry Cookus [and?] the above being [Poss^or?] [Cred?] <br />
<br />
John Littlejohn <br />
<br />
Adm^or of Mich^l Welch <br />
<br />
May 13th 1795<br />
<br />
[Witn?]<br />
<br />
J Marshall<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59416Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T20:15:23Z<p>Mnumberger: Document transcription</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery in 1792.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. According to the court clerk's handwritten notes, the case was subsequently continued until September 1792, when Welch's representatives filed an answer and were awarded a general commission to take testimony.<ref>''Id.''</ref><br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
<br />
According to John Marshall's Account Books, Marshall received four separate payments from 1790-1795 for his representation of Christian Orandorf in this matter. The first payment of £5 is listed as having been received on May 21, 1790,<ref> Accounts: 1790, Receipts, May 21st, Orendorf v. Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 393.</ref> suggesting that Marshall may have represented Orandorf in the Berkeley County Clerk. After filing Orandorf's Petition of Appeal in 1792, Marshall received a payment of £6.<ref> Accounts: 1792, Receipts, February, Orandorf v Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 433.</ref> Marshall's Account Book for 1795 indicate that Marshall received two payments related to this matter that year, first in March 1795 for £3<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, March, Littlejohn v Cookus (in Orandorf v Cookus), ''supra'' note 2, at 487.</ref> and next in May 1795 for £30.<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, May, Orandorf, ''supra'' note 2, at 489.</ref> This final payment was received around the time that Marshall witnessed a receipt dated May 13, 1795, indicating that Christian and Stuffell Orandorf had paid the administrator of Welch's estate, John Littlejohn, £66 11s. 1d. This receipt suggests that Orandorf lost his case against Welch on appeal. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
To the Honble the Judge of the High court of Chancery humbly complaining sheweth unto your Honor your <s>orator</s> petitioner christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
That the annexed record shews the proceedings against your orator & the representa-tives of Henry Cookus in the county court of Berkley at the suit of the representatives of Michael Welch and whereby a property fairly purchased by your <s>orator</s> is taken from him & a firm contract set aside without any process having been served upon him. Your <s>orator</s> petitioner is advised that there is manifest error in the said decree in this, that even admitting your petitioner to have been a non resident which is not the fact nor does your petitioner think it appears so on the record, no time is allowed your petitioner to set aside the decree as is directed by law in case of decrees against non residents nor are the complainants used to give any security on the want of setting aside the decree. For these & other obvious reasons your petitioner humbly prays that his appeal from the said decree may be received & that a supersedeas may issue to supersede & reverse the same And your petitioner will ever pray &c <br />
<br />
Christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
The petition of appeal is allowed; the petitioner entering into bond, with surety, in the penalty of one hundred pounds; and a supersedeas is awarded <br />
<br />
18 Feb. 1791 G. Wythe<br />
<br />
4/8<br />
Orandorf <br />
vs } Paper's <br />
Welche's admors<br />
March 1792 dock. & Cont.<br />
<br />
May -- Cont.<br />
<br />
Sept. - Entg decree -- ans^r filed<br />
<br />
cause retained & Ge Coms aw^d<br />
<br />
Filed February 18^th 1792<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
Recieved from Christian & Stuffell Orrindroff Sixty Eight pounds Eleven shill. and one penney for and on account of the Estate of Henry Cookus [and?] the above being [Poss^or?] [Cred?] <br />
<br />
John Littlejohn <br />
<br />
Adm^or of Mich^l Welch <br />
<br />
May 13th 1795<br />
<br />
[Witn?]<br />
<br />
J Marshall<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59412Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T20:08:28Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery in 1792.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. According to the court clerk's handwritten notes, the case was subsequently continued until September 1792, when Welch's representatives filed an answer and were awarded a general commission to take testimony.<ref>''Id.''</ref><br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
<br />
According to John Marshall's Account Books, Marshall received four separate payments from 1790-1795 for his representation of Christian Orandorf in this matter. The first payment of £5 is listed as having been received on May 21, 1790,<ref> Accounts: 1790, Receipts, May 21st, Orendorf v. Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 393.</ref> suggesting that Marshall may have represented Orandorf in the Berkeley County Clerk. After filing Orandorf's Petition of Appeal in 1792, Marshall received a payment of £6.<ref> Accounts: 1792, Receipts, February, Orandorf v Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 433.</ref> Marshall's Account Book for 1795 indicate that Marshall received two payments related to this matter that year, first in March 1795 for £3<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, March, Littlejohn v Cookus (in Orandorf v Cookus), ''supra'' note 2, at 487.</ref> and next in May 1795 for £30.<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, May, Orandorf, ''supra'' note 2, at 489.</ref> This final payment was received around the time that Marshall witnessed a receipt dated May 13, 1795, indicating that Christian and Stuffell Orandorf had paid the administrator of Welch's estate, John Littlejohn, £66 11s. 1d. This receipt suggests that Orandorf lost his case against Welch on appeal. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
To the Honble the Judge of the High court of <br />
Chancery humbly complaining sheweth<br />
unto your Honor your orator petitioner christian <br />
Orandorf<br />
<br />
That the annexed record shews the <br />
proceedings against your orator & the representa<br />
-tives of Henry Cookus in the county court of Berkley <br />
at the suit of the representatives of Michael Welch <br />
and whereby a property fairly purchased by your <br />
orator is taken from him & a firm contract set <br />
aside without any process having been served<br />
upon him. Your orator petitioner is advised that there <br />
is manifest error in the said decree in this, <br />
that even admitting your petitioner to have been <br />
a non resident which is not the fact nor does your <br />
petitioner think it appears so on the record, no <br />
time is allowed your petitioner to set aside the <br />
decree as is directed by law in case of decrees against <br />
non residents nor are the complainants used<br />
to give any security on the want of setting aside the <br />
decree. For these & other obvious reasons your petitioner <br />
humbly prays that his appeal from the said decree <br />
may be received & that a supersedeas may issue<br />
to supersede & reverse the same <br />
And your petitioner will ever pray &c <br />
Christian Orandorf<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
The petition of appeal is allowed; the <br />
petitioner entering into bond, with surety, <br />
in the penalty of one hundred pounds; <br />
and a supersedeas is awarded <br />
18 Feb. 1791 G. Wythe<br />
<br />
4/8<br />
Orandorf <br />
vs } Paper's <br />
Welche's admors<br />
March 1792 dock. & Cont.<br />
May -- Cont.<br />
Sept. - Entg decree -- ans^r filed<br />
cause retained & Ge Coms aw^d<br />
<br />
Filed February 18^th 1792<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
Recieved from Christian & Stuffell Orrindroff <br />
Sixty Eight pounds Eleven shill. and one <br />
penney for and on account of the Estate of <br />
Henry Cookus [and?] the above being [Poss^or?] [Cred?] <br />
John Littlejohn <br />
Adm^or of Mich^l Welch <br />
May 13th 1795<br />
<br />
[Witn?]<br />
J Marshall<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59408Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T20:07:12Z<p>Mnumberger: Citations....</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery in 1792.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977) [hereinafter Marshall Papers].</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. According to the court clerk's handwritten notes, the case was subsequently continued until September 1792, when Welch's representatives filed an answer and were awarded a general commission to take testimony.<ref>''Id.''</ref><br />
<br />
==Additional Information==<br />
<br />
According to John Marshall's Account Books, Marshall received four separate payments from 1790-1795 for his representation of Christian Orandorf in this matter. The first payment of £5 is listed as having been received on May 21, 1790,<ref> Accounts: 1790, Receipts, May 21st, Orendorf v. Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 393.</ref> suggesting that Marshall may have represented Orandorf in the Berkeley County Clerk. After filing Orandorf's Petition of Appeal in 1792, Marshall received a payment of £6.<ref> Accounts: 1792, Receipts, February, Orandorf v Cookus, ''supra'' note 2, at 433.</ref> Marshall's Account Book for 1795 indicate that Marshall received two payments related to this matter that year, first in March 1795 for £3<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, March, Littlejohn v Cookus (in Orandorf v Cookus), ''supra'' note 2, at 487.</ref> and next in May 1795 for £30.<ref> Accounts: 1795, Receipts, May, Orandorf, ''supra'' note 2, at 489.</ref> This final payment was received around the time that Marshall witnessed a receipt dated May 13, 1795, indicating that Christian and Stuffell Orandorf had paid the administrator of Welch's estate, John Littlejohn, £66 11s. 1d. This receipt suggests that Orandorf lost his case against Welch on appeal. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59406Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T19:36:17Z<p>Mnumberger: Document Text headings</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1792) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf by Marshall in the High Court of Chancery.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
==The Court's Decision==<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==Document Text==<br />
<br />
===Page 1 (Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, by John Marshall)===<br />
<br />
===Page 2 (George Wythe's Grant of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal, 18 February 1792)===<br />
<br />
===Page 3 (John Littlejohn's Receipt of Orandorf's Payment, Witnessed by John Marshall, 13 May 1795)===<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59404Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T19:30:57Z<p>Mnumberger: Adding info about John Marshall</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref> Orandorf's Petition of Appeal is written in John Marshall's hand and was filed on Orandorf's behalf in the High Court of Chancery.<ref>''Orandorf v. Welch's Administrators'', Petition of Appeal, in 2 The Papers of John Marshall: Correspondence and Papers, July 1788—December 1795; Account Book, July 1788—December 1795 110 (Charles T. Cullen & Herbert A. Johnson, eds., 1977).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
The representatives of Michael Welch's estate sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=59398Orandorf v. Welch2017-11-14T17:37:36Z<p>Mnumberger: Fixed verb tense issues</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court had set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf's petition alleged the property had been purchased fairly and his firm contract set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf's petition alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf had not been a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf insisted was untrue -- Orandorf had had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents. Additionally, Welch had offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58770Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T20:53:06Z<p>Mnumberger: Adding photo of Orandorf's Petition of Appeal</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
[[File:PetitionOfAppealOrandorfVWelch18February1791P1.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Orandorf's Petition of Appeal]]<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf alleged the property was purchased fairly and his firm contract was set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf was not a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf dismissed as untrue -- Orandorf had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents, and Welch offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58768Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T20:49:00Z<p>Mnumberger: adding link to citation</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall), available at http://archives.law.virginia.edu/records/mss/78-6/digital/1114.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf alleged the property was purchased fairly and his firm contract was set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf was not a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf dismissed as untrue -- Orandorf had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents, and Welch offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58766Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T20:48:12Z<p>Mnumberger: Citation format</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf (Feb. 18, 1791) (on file with the Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall).</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf alleged the property was purchased fairly and his firm contract was set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf was not a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf dismissed as untrue -- Orandorf had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents, and Welch offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58764Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T20:40:34Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf, Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf alleged the property was purchased fairly and his firm contract was set aside without notice. <br />
<br />
Orandorf alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf was not a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf dismissed as untrue -- Orandorf had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents, and Welch offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58762Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T20:36:44Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf, Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf alleged the property was purchased fairly and his firm contract was set aside without due process. <br />
<br />
Orandorf alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf was not a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf dismissed as untrue -- Orandorf had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents, and Welch offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58760Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T20:36:16Z<p>Mnumberger: background & court's decision</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf, Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
Michael Welch sued Orandorf and the representatives of Henry Cookus in Berkeley County Court. A decree from the court set aside Orandorf’s purchase contract for property in Berkeley County, and Orandorf alleged the property was purchased fairly and his firm contract was set aside without due process. <br />
<br />
Orandorf alleged manifest error in the court’s decree and argued that even if Orandorf was not a resident of Berkeley County -- which Orandorf dismissed as untrue -- Orandorf had no time to set aside the decree, as allowed by the law in the cases of decrees against non-residents, and Welch offered no security in the absence of an opportunity to set aside the decree.<br />
<br />
Orandorf petitioned for an appeal from the decree to the High Court of Chancery and asked the Court to issue a supersedeas bond to reverse and supersede enforcement of the decree.<br />
<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
With minimal discussion, Wythe granted the petition of appeal and awarded Orandorf a supersedeas bond, with surety, in the penalty of £100. <br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58726Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T14:30:33Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' (February 18, 1791) is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf, Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58724Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T14:29:24Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf, Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58722Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T14:29:04Z<p>Mnumberger: Adding intro</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Orandorf v. Welch''}}<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Orandorf v. Welch'' is a brief decision by Wythe as Judge of the Hight Court of Chancery granting Orandorf's Petition of Appeal and awarding the petitioner a supersedeas bond.<ref>Petition of Appeal by Christian Orandorf, Arthur J. Morris Law Library Special Collections, The John M. Woolsey Collection of Legal Documents, Box 1, Documents in the Case of Orandorf v. Welch with signatures of George Wythe and John Marshall.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Orandorf_v._Welch&diff=58720Orandorf v. Welch2017-10-31T14:15:33Z<p>Mnumberger: Creating case page stub</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Title''}}<br />
<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
Introduction and summary.<ref>Please footnote sources.</ref><br />
<br />
==Background==<br />
<br />
===The Court's Decision===<br />
<br />
==See also==<br />
*[[Wythe's Judicial Career]]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
[[Category: Cases]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=45448Wythe's Early Life2015-11-11T21:43:52Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[George Wythe]] was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, to Thomas Walker III and Margaret Walker at his family’s plantation Chesterville. <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref> The future judge and teacher received a varied education in the classics from an early age before embarking on a legal career at the age of 16 after his older brother inherited most of his family's wealth. <br />
<br />
==The Wythes==<br />
<br />
Although little is known about Wythe’s ancestors, it is likely that the first Wythes came to the Virginia colony from Norfolk, England, where they were wealthy wool merchants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. <ref> Imogene E. Brown, “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 15. </ref> Further evidence of his family’s aristocratic background is revealed in Wythe’s use of “a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified nobility. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe I, settled in Virginia some time before 1680, bringing his family with him from England <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 15. </ref> Thomas I was elected to represent Elizabeth City County for the 1680-1682 session of the House of Burgesses and also served as a justice of the peace for several years.. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 16.</ref> He died in December 1693, leaving his family a substantial fortune, <ref> Ibid. </ref> and was survived by his wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II, was born in 1670 and arrived with his father in Virginia around age 10. <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas II served as one of the early trustees of the city of Hampton and became a justice in 1688 <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref> but died young in 1694 at the age of about 24. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas II left behind two children, Thomas III and Ann, as well as his wife, Ann Shepard Gutherick, who later married Reverend James Wallace of Elizabeth City Parish <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> He was active in public office, serving on the county court, holding the office of county sheriff, and serving as a burgess in the Assemblies in 1718, 1723, and 1726. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in either 1719 or 1720. <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
==Birth and Early Education==<br />
<br />
The marriage of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths.” <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of whom was George. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas III died in 1729, leaving Margaret to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne, by herself. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III’s will left George’s older brother, Thomas IV, nearly everything, excepting several slaves and a share of the residue of his personal estate after his debts had been settled. <ref>Brown, ''American Aristides', 20.</ref> After raising her children alone, Margaret likely died in 1746. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s law students and contemporaries provided inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son, although it is likely that at least some of his early knowledge came from his well-educated mother. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 20 </ref> Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though he added that his mother had helped him learn Greek. <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 7.</ref> On the other hand, Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay--like Jefferson--believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek rather than Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training. <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education at either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, grammar schools near Chesterville. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe’s early home-based education was possibly supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William & Mary around age 14 <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 21.</ref> to receive more structured lessons in Greek and Latin. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William & Mary building in a young child’s handwriting. <ref>Ibid.</ref> That said, because William & Mary’s records were later destroyed by fire, it is impossible to determine for certain whether Wythe was ever enrolled at the school. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21. </ref> <br />
<br />
==Legal Education==<br />
<br />
Wherever Wythe received his early formal education, his mother sent him to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, Margaret’s sister Elizabeth’s husband, to receive legal training <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 8. </ref> when he was around fifteen years old. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> Dewey was the king’s Attorney for the County of Charles City, well-respected in his field, and an active political participant in Prince George County. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21-22. </ref> <br />
<br />
Despite his uncle’s accomplishments and prominence, Wythe later remembered his apprenticeship as “unpleasant.” <ref> Ibid., 22. </ref> He was unsatisfied with Dewey’s teaching methods, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to the young trainee. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> Although performing select routine tasks for Dewey in exchange for a legal education would have been considered typical training under the legal apprenticeship system, Wythe believed Dewey considered him more of a servant than an apprentice and claimed he learned little from his uncle. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
==Admission to Practice==<br />
<br />
After two years of apprenticeship, Wythe returned home to Chesterville and studied law and classical languages on his own for a few years. <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref> After his mother died in 1746, Wythe was ready to appear before a committee of examiners seeking admission to the Virginia bar. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 23. </ref> The examination process was standardized by 1746 and required the presentation of a certificate from a lower court testifying to the applicant’s character, payment of a twenty shilling fee, and satisfactory response to the committee’s questions on the candidate’s knowledge of the law. <ref> Ibid. </ref> It is probable that Wythe was examined in Williamsburg before a committee consisting of Peyton Randolph, St. Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey, all of whom signed Wythe’s law license. <ref> Ibid. </ref> Wythe returned home, where he sought permission to practice before the Elizabeth City County Court, where he was admitted to practice on June 18, 1746. <ref> Ibid. </ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=45446Wythe's Early Life2015-11-11T21:42:55Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[George Wythe]] was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, to Thomas Walker III and Margaret Walker at his family’s plantation Chesterville. <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref> George Wythe received a varied education in the classics from an early age before embarking on a legal career at the age of 16 after his older brother inherited most of his family's wealth. <br />
<br />
==The Wythes==<br />
<br />
Although little is known about Wythe’s ancestors, it is likely that the first Wythes came to the Virginia colony from Norfolk, England, where they were wealthy wool merchants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. <ref> Imogene E. Brown, “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 15. </ref> Further evidence of his family’s aristocratic background is revealed in Wythe’s use of “a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified nobility. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe I, settled in Virginia some time before 1680, bringing his family with him from England <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 15. </ref> Thomas I was elected to represent Elizabeth City County for the 1680-1682 session of the House of Burgesses and also served as a justice of the peace for several years.. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 16.</ref> He died in December 1693, leaving his family a substantial fortune, <ref> Ibid. </ref> and was survived by his wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II, was born in 1670 and arrived with his father in Virginia around age 10. <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas II served as one of the early trustees of the city of Hampton and became a justice in 1688 <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref> but died young in 1694 at the age of about 24. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas II left behind two children, Thomas III and Ann, as well as his wife, Ann Shepard Gutherick, who later married Reverend James Wallace of Elizabeth City Parish <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> He was active in public office, serving on the county court, holding the office of county sheriff, and serving as a burgess in the Assemblies in 1718, 1723, and 1726. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in either 1719 or 1720. <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
==Birth and Early Education==<br />
<br />
The marriage of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths.” <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of whom was George. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas III died in 1729, leaving Margaret to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne, by herself. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III’s will left George’s older brother, Thomas IV, nearly everything, excepting several slaves and a share of the residue of his personal estate after his debts had been settled. <ref>Brown, ''American Aristides', 20.</ref> After raising her children alone, Margaret likely died in 1746. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s law students and contemporaries provided inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son, although it is likely that at least some of his early knowledge came from his well-educated mother. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 20 </ref> Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though he added that his mother had helped him learn Greek. <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 7.</ref> On the other hand, Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay--like Jefferson--believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek rather than Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training. <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education at either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, grammar schools near Chesterville. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe’s early home-based education was possibly supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William & Mary around age 14 <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 21.</ref> to receive more structured lessons in Greek and Latin. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William & Mary building in a young child’s handwriting. <ref>Ibid.</ref> That said, because William & Mary’s records were later destroyed by fire, it is impossible to determine for certain whether Wythe was ever enrolled at the school. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21. </ref> <br />
<br />
==Legal Education==<br />
<br />
Wherever Wythe received his early formal education, his mother sent him to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, Margaret’s sister Elizabeth’s husband, to receive legal training <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 8. </ref> when he was around fifteen years old. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> Dewey was the king’s Attorney for the County of Charles City, well-respected in his field, and an active political participant in Prince George County. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21-22. </ref> <br />
<br />
Despite his uncle’s accomplishments and prominence, Wythe later remembered his apprenticeship as “unpleasant.” <ref> Ibid., 22. </ref> He was unsatisfied with Dewey’s teaching methods, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to the young trainee. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> Although performing select routine tasks for Dewey in exchange for a legal education would have been considered typical training under the legal apprenticeship system, Wythe believed Dewey considered him more of a servant than an apprentice and claimed he learned little from his uncle. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
==Admission to Practice==<br />
<br />
After two years of apprenticeship, Wythe returned home to Chesterville and studied law and classical languages on his own for a few years. <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref> After his mother died in 1746, Wythe was ready to appear before a committee of examiners seeking admission to the Virginia bar. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 23. </ref> The examination process was standardized by 1746 and required the presentation of a certificate from a lower court testifying to the applicant’s character, payment of a twenty shilling fee, and satisfactory response to the committee’s questions on the candidate’s knowledge of the law. <ref> Ibid. </ref> It is probable that Wythe was examined in Williamsburg before a committee consisting of Peyton Randolph, St. Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey, all of whom signed Wythe’s law license. <ref> Ibid. </ref> Wythe returned home, where he sought permission to practice before the Elizabeth City County Court, where he was admitted to practice on June 18, 1746. <ref> Ibid. </ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=45444Wythe's Early Life2015-11-11T21:42:10Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[George Wythe]] was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, to Thomas Walker III and Margaret Walker at his family’s plantation Chesterville. <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref> George Wythe received a varied education in the classics from an early age before embarking on a legal career at the age of 16 after his older brother inherited most of his family's wealth. <br />
<br />
==The Wythes==<br />
<br />
Although little is known about Wythe’s ancestors, it is likely that the first Wythes came to the Virginia colony from Norfolk, England, where they were wealthy wool merchants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. <ref> Imogene E. Brown, “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 15. </ref> Further evidence of his family’s aristocratic background is revealed in Wythe’s use of “a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified nobility. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe I, settled in Virginia some time before 1680, bringing his family with him from England <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 15. </ref> Thomas I was elected to represent Elizabeth City County for the 1680-1682 session of the House of Burgesses and also served as a justice of the peace for several years.. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 16.</ref> He died in December 1693, leaving his family a substantial fortune, <ref> Ibid. </ref> and was survived by his wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II, was born in 1670 and arrived with his father in Virginia around age 10. <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas II served as one of the early trustees of the city of Hampton as well as a justice in 1688 <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref> but died young in 1694 at the age of about 24. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas II left behind two children, Thomas III and Ann, as well as his wife, Ann Shepard Gutherick, who later married Reverend James Wallace of Elizabeth City Parish <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> He was active in public office, serving on the county court, holding the office of county sheriff, and serving as a burgess in the Assemblies in 1718, 1723, and 1726. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in either 1719 or 1720. <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
==Birth and Early Education==<br />
<br />
The marriage of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths.” <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of whom was George. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas III died in 1729, leaving Margaret to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne, by herself. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III’s will left George’s older brother, Thomas IV, nearly everything, excepting several slaves and a share of the residue of his personal estate after his debts had been settled. <ref>Brown, ''American Aristides', 20.</ref> After raising her children alone, Margaret likely died in 1746. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s law students and contemporaries provided inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son, although it is likely that at least some of his early knowledge came from his well-educated mother. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 20 </ref> Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though he added that his mother had helped him learn Greek. <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 7.</ref> On the other hand, Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay--like Jefferson--believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek rather than Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training. <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education at either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, grammar schools near Chesterville. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe’s early home-based education was possibly supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William & Mary around age 14 <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 21.</ref> to receive more structured lessons in Greek and Latin. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William & Mary building in a young child’s handwriting. <ref>Ibid.</ref> That said, because William & Mary’s records were later destroyed by fire, it is impossible to determine for certain whether Wythe was ever enrolled at the school. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21. </ref> <br />
<br />
==Legal Education==<br />
<br />
Wherever Wythe received his early formal education, his mother sent him to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, Margaret’s sister Elizabeth’s husband, to receive legal training <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 8. </ref> when he was around fifteen years old. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> Dewey was the king’s Attorney for the County of Charles City, well-respected in his field, and an active political participant in Prince George County. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21-22. </ref> <br />
<br />
Despite his uncle’s accomplishments and prominence, Wythe later remembered his apprenticeship as “unpleasant.” <ref> Ibid., 22. </ref> He was unsatisfied with Dewey’s teaching methods, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to the young trainee. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> Although performing select routine tasks for Dewey in exchange for a legal education would have been considered typical training under the legal apprenticeship system, Wythe believed Dewey considered him more of a servant than an apprentice and claimed he learned little from his uncle. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
==Admission to Practice==<br />
<br />
After two years of apprenticeship, Wythe returned home to Chesterville and studied law and classical languages on his own for a few years. <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref> After his mother died in 1746, Wythe was ready to appear before a committee of examiners seeking admission to the Virginia bar. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 23. </ref> The examination process was standardized by 1746 and required the presentation of a certificate from a lower court testifying to the applicant’s character, payment of a twenty shilling fee, and satisfactory response to the committee’s questions on the candidate’s knowledge of the law. <ref> Ibid. </ref> It is probable that Wythe was examined in Williamsburg before a committee consisting of Peyton Randolph, St. Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey, all of whom signed Wythe’s law license. <ref> Ibid. </ref> Wythe returned home, where he sought permission to practice before the Elizabeth City County Court, where he was admitted to practice on June 18, 1746. <ref> Ibid. </ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=45442Wythe's Early Life2015-11-11T21:38:19Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[George Wythe]] was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, to Thomas Walker III and Margaret Walker at his family’s plantation Chesterville. <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref> Although little is known about Wythe’s ancestors, it is likely that the first Wythes came to the Virginia colony from Norfolk, England, where they were wealthy wool merchants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. <ref> Imogene E. Brown, “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 15. </ref> Further evidence of his family’s aristocratic background is revealed in Wythe’s use of “a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified nobility. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
==Wythe Family==<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe I, settled in Virginia some time before 1680, bringing his family with him from England <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 15. </ref> Thomas I was elected to represent Elizabeth City County for the 1680-1682 session of the House of Burgesses and also served as a justice of the peace for several years.. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 16.</ref> He died in December 1693, leaving his family a substantial fortune, <ref> Ibid. </ref> and was survived by his wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II, was born in 1670 and arrived with his father in Virginia around age 10. <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas II served as one of the early trustees of the city of Hampton as well as a justice in 1688 <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref> but died young in 1694 at the age of about 24. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas II left behind two children, Thomas III and Ann, as well as his wife, Ann Shepard Gutherick, who later married Reverend James Wallace of Elizabeth City Parish <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> He was active in public office, serving on the county court, holding the office of county sheriff, and serving as a burgess in the Assemblies in 1718, 1723, and 1726. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in either 1719 or 1720. <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
==Birth and Early Education==<br />
<br />
The marriage of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths.” <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of whom was George. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas III died in 1729, leaving Margaret to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne, by herself. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III’s will left George’s older brother, Thomas IV, nearly everything, excepting several slaves and a share of the residue of his personal estate after his debts had been settled. <ref>Brown, ''American Aristides', 20.</ref> After raising her children alone, Margaret likely died in 1746. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s law students and contemporaries provided inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son, although it is likely that at least some of his early knowledge came from his well-educated mother. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 20 </ref> Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though he added that his mother had helped him learn Greek. <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 7.</ref> On the other hand, Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay--like Jefferson--believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek rather than Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training. <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education at either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, grammar schools near Chesterville. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe’s early home-based education was possibly supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William & Mary around age 14 <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 21.</ref> to receive more structured lessons in Greek and Latin. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William & Mary building in a young child’s handwriting. <ref>Ibid.</ref> That said, because William & Mary’s records were later destroyed by fire, it is impossible to determine for certain whether Wythe was ever enrolled at the school. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21. </ref> <br />
<br />
==Legal Education==<br />
<br />
Wherever Wythe received his early formal education, his mother sent him to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, Margaret’s sister Elizabeth’s husband, to receive legal training <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 8. </ref> when he was around fifteen years old. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> Dewey was the king’s Attorney for the County of Charles City, well-respected in his field, and an active political participant in Prince George County. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21-22. </ref> <br />
<br />
Despite his uncle’s accomplishments and prominence, Wythe later remembered his apprenticeship as “unpleasant.” <ref> Ibid., 22. </ref> He was unsatisfied with Dewey’s teaching methods, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to the young trainee. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> Although performing select routine tasks for Dewey in exchange for a legal education would have been considered typical training under the legal apprenticeship system, Wythe believed Dewey considered him more of a servant than an apprentice and claimed he learned little from his uncle. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
==Admission to Practice==<br />
<br />
After two years of apprenticeship, Wythe returned home to Chesterville and studied law and classical languages on his own for a few years. <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref> After his mother died in 1746, Wythe was ready to appear before a committee of examiners seeking admission to the Virginia bar. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 23. </ref> The examination process was standardized by 1746 and required the presentation of a certificate from a lower court testifying to the applicant’s character, payment of a twenty shilling fee, and satisfactory response to the committee’s questions on the candidate’s knowledge of the law. <ref> Ibid. </ref> It is probable that Wythe was examined in Williamsburg before a committee consisting of Peyton Randolph, St. Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey, all of whom signed Wythe’s law license. <ref> Ibid. </ref> Wythe returned home, where he sought permission to practice before the Elizabeth City County Court, where he was admitted to practice on June 18, 1746. <ref> Ibid. </ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=45440Wythe's Early Life2015-11-11T21:33:35Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[George Wythe]] was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, to Thomas Walker III and Margaret Walker at his family’s plantation Chesterville. <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref> Although little is known about Wythe’s ancestors, it is likely that the first Wythes came to the Virginia colony from Norfolk, England, where they were wealthy wool merchants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. <ref> Imogene E. Brown, “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 15. </ref> Further evidence of his family’s aristocratic background is revealed in Wythe’s use of “a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified nobility. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe I, settled in Virginia some time before 1680, bringing his family with him from England <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 15. </ref> Thomas I was elected to represent Elizabeth City County for the 1680-1682 session of the House of Burgesses and also served as a justice of the peace for several years.. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 16.</ref> He died in December 1693, leaving his family a substantial fortune, <ref> Ibid. </ref> and was survived by his wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II, was born in 1670 and arrived with his father in Virginia around age 10. <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas II served as one of the early trustees of the city of Hampton as well as a justice in 1688 <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref> but died young in 1694 at the age of about 24. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas II left behind two children, Thomas III and Ann, as well as his wife, Ann Shepard Gutherick, who later married Reverend James Wallace of Elizabeth City Parish <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> He was active in public office, serving on the county court, holding the office of county sheriff, and serving as a burgess in the Assemblies in 1718, 1723, and 1726. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in either 1719 or 1720. <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths.” <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of whom was George. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas III died in 1729, leaving Margaret to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne, by herself. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III’s will left George’s older brother, Thomas IV, nearly everything, excepting several slaves and a share of the residue of his personal estate after his debts had been settled. <ref>Brown, ''American Aristides', 20.</ref> After raising her children alone, Margaret likely died in 1746. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provided inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son, although it is likely that at least some of his early knowledge came from his well-educated mother. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 20 </ref> Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though he added that his mother had helped him learn Greek. <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 7.</ref> On the other hand, Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay--like Jefferson--believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek rather than Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training. <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education at either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, grammar schools near Chesterville. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe’s early home-based education was possibly supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William & Mary around age 14 <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 21.</ref> to receive more structured lessons in Greek and Latin. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William & Mary building in a young child’s handwriting. <ref>Ibid.</ref> That said, because William & Mary’s records were later destroyed by fire, it is impossible to determine for certain whether Wythe was ever enrolled at the school. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21. </ref> <br />
<br />
Wherever Wythe received his early formal education, his mother sent him to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, Margaret’s sister Elizabeth’s husband, to receive legal training <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 8. </ref> when he was around fifteen years old. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> Dewey was the king’s Attorney for the County of Charles City, well-respected in his field, and an active political participant in Prince George County. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21-22. </ref> <br />
<br />
Despite his uncle’s accomplishments and prominence, Wythe later remembered his apprenticeship as “unpleasant.” <ref> Ibid., 22. </ref> He was unsatisfied with Dewey’s teaching methods, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to the young trainee. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> Although performing select routine tasks for Dewey in exchange for a legal education would have been considered typical training under the legal apprenticeship system, Wythe believed Dewey considered him more of a servant than an apprentice and claimed he learned little from his uncle. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
After two years of apprenticeship, Wythe returned home to Chesterville and studied law and classical languages on his own for a few years. <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref> After his mother died in 1746, Wythe was ready to appear before a committee of examiners seeking admission to the Virginia bar. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 23. </ref> The examination process was standardized by 1746 and required the presentation of a certificate from a lower court testifying to the applicant’s character, payment of a twenty shilling fee, and satisfactory response to the committee’s questions on the candidate’s knowledge of the law. <ref> Ibid. </ref> It is probable that Wythe was examined in Williamsburg before a committee consisting of Peyton Randolph, St. Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey, all of whom signed Wythe’s law license. <ref> Ibid. </ref> Wythe returned home, where he sought permission to practice before the Elizabeth City County Court, where he was admitted to practice on June 18, 1746. <ref> Ibid. </ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=45438Wythe's Early Life2015-11-11T21:33:09Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[George Wythe]] was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, to Thomas Walker III and Margaret Walker at his family’s plantation Chesterville. <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref> Although little is known about Wythe’s ancestors, it is likely that the first Wythes came to the Virginia colony from Norfolk, England, where they were wealthy wool merchants in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. <ref> Imogene E. Brown, “American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe,” (Rutherford, N.J.: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1981), 15. </ref> Further evidence of his family’s aristocratic background is revealed in Wythe’s use of “a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified nobility. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe I, settled in Virginia some time before 1680, bringing his family with him from England <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 15. </ref> Thomas I was elected to represent Elizabeth City County for the 1680-1682 session of the House of Burgesses and also served as a justice of the peace for several years.. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 16.</ref> He died in December 1693, leaving his family a substantial fortune, <ref> Ibid. </ref> and was survived by his wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II, was born in 1670 and arrived with his father in Virginia around age 10. <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas II served as one of the early trustees of the city of Hampton as well as a justice in 1688 <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref> but died young in 1694 at the age of about 24. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas II left behind two children, Thomas III and Ann, as well as his wife, Ann Shepard Gutherick, who later married Reverend James Wallace of Elizabeth City Parish <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 16. </ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> He was active in public office, serving on the county court, holding the office of county sheriff, and serving as a burgess in the Assemblies in 1718, 1723, and 1726. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in either 1719 or 1720. <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths.” <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of whom was George. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas III died in 1729, leaving Margaret to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne, by herself. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III’s will left George’s older brother, Thomas IV, nearly everything, excepting several slaves and a share of the residue of his personal estate after his debts had been settled. <ref>Brown, ''American Aristides', 20.</ref> After raising her children alone, Margaret likely died in 1746. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provided inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son, although it is likely that at least some of his early knowledge came from his well-educated mother. <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 20 </ref> Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though he added that his mother had helped him learn Greek. <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 7.</ref> On the other hand, Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay--like Jefferson--believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek rather than Latin. <ref>Ibid.</ref> Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training. <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education at either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, grammar schools near Chesterville. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe’s early home-based education was possibly supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William & Mary around age 14 <ref>Brown, “American Aristides,” 21.</ref> to receive more structured lessons in Greek and Latin. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student. <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William & Mary building in a young child’s handwriting. <ref>Ibid.</ref> That said, because William & Mary’s records were later destroyed by fire, it is impossible to determine for certain whether Wythe was ever enrolled at the school. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21. </ref> <br />
<br />
Wherever Wythe received his early formal education, his mother sent him to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, Margaret’s sister Elizabeth’s husband, to receive legal training <ref>Dill, “George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty,” 8. </ref> when he was around fifteen years old. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> Dewey was the king’s Attorney for the County of Charles City, well-respected in his field, and an active political participant in Prince George County. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 21-22. </ref> <br />
<br />
Despite his uncle’s accomplishments and prominence, Wythe later remembered his apprenticeship as “unpleasant.” <ref> Ibid., 22. </ref> He was unsatisfied with Dewey’s teaching methods, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to the young trainee. <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> Although performing select routine tasks for Dewey in exchange for a legal education would have been considered typical training under the legal apprenticeship system, Wythe believed Dewey considered him more of a servant than an apprentice and claimed he learned little from his uncle. <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
After two years of apprenticeship, Wythe returned home to Chesterville and studied law and classical languages on his own for a few years. <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref> After his mother died in 1746, Wythe was ready to appear before a committee of examiners seeking admission to the Virginia bar. <ref> Brown, “American Aristides,” 23. </ref> The examination process was standardized by 1746 and required the presentation of a certificate from a lower court testifying to the applicant’s character, payment of a twenty shilling fee, and satisfactory response to the committee’s questions on the candidate’s knowledge of the law. <Ibid. </ref> It is probable that Wythe was examined in Williamsburg before a committee consisting of Peyton Randolph, St. Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey, all of whom signed Wythe’s law license. <ref> Ibid. </ref> Wythe returned home, where he sought permission to practice before the Elizabeth City County Court, where he was admitted to practice on June 18, 1746. <ref> Ibid. </ref> <br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=36948Wythe's Early Life2015-03-24T21:19:05Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, at his family’s plantation Chesterville <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref>. Wythe’s ancestors were likely an aristocratic family in Elizabeth City County <ref>William Edwin Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 5.</ref> Although not much information is known about the family, George Wythe “used a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified a noble background in Wythe’s era <ref>Ibid., 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
George was the son of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 3.</ref> Thomas Wythe I settled in Virginia around 1680, bringing with him a 10-year old son, Thomas II <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas I, supposedly the Wythe who immigrated to the colony, was a justice on the Elizabeth City county court and served a term as a burgess in the lower house of Assembly <ref>Ibid., 4.</ref> Thomas I died in 1693 or 1694 <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 8.</ref> He was survived by wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II was born in 1670 <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas Wythe II married Anne Shepard/Sheppard. Thomas II sat on the county court but passed away in 1694 at the age of about 24 <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> His death occurred only a few months after his father died <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 10.</ref> Thomas II was the second husband to wife Ann Sheppard, who then remarried again after Thomas II died <ref>Ibid., 9-11.</ref> Through Ann’s various marriages, George Wythe was at least distantly related to many upper-class Virginia families <ref>Ibid., 11.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas III was very publically active, serving on the county court and holding the office of county sheriff <ref>Ibid.</ref> Served as a burgess in the Assemblies from 1718-1720 and 1723-1726 <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in 1719 <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Margaret Walker’s grandfather was George Keith, an erstwhile Quaker with a band of followers known as “Keithians” <ref>Ibid., 4-5.</ref> Keith was jailed at least six times for his missionary work <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 13.</ref> By the end of his life, Keith had become Anglican, which was ironic since he had spent much of his early life trying to convert people away from Anglicanism <ref>Ibid., 14.</ref><br />
<br />
Keith’s daughter, Anne Keith Walker, married George Walker, a devout Quaker who did a variety of maritime-related work throughout his life <ref>Ibid., 16-19.</ref> Anne later converted to the Anglican faith, leading to disputes between them over the education of their children <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref> Anne even made a formal petition to Virginia’s Council at Williamsburg in an effort to raise her children under the Anglican church <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 23.</ref> Nevertheless, the pair’s daughter, Margaret Walker, was raised in the Quaker religion at a home not distant from that of Thomas Wythe III <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> <br />
<br />
Margaret Walker and Thomas Wythe III married in either 1719 or 1720 <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of which was George <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Shortly after George’s birth, Thomas Wythe III passed away, leaving Margaret Wythe to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III died in 1729 without a will, so, as the oldest son, Thomas IV inherited everything according to the system of primogeniture <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref> Margaret likely died in 1746 <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provide inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son. Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though his mother helped him learn Greek <ref>Ibid., 7.</ref> Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay - like Jefferson - believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek, not in Latin <ref>Ibid.</ref> Despite this education, Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education from either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, both of which were grammar schools near Chesterville <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe received his knowledge of classical languages from his mother, however, who reportedly taught him basic Latin grammar and possibly some Greek <ref>Ibid., 32-33.</ref> Wythe’s education from his mother was probably supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William and Mary <ref>Ibid., 34.</ref> This likely happened in or around 1735 <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
George is often assumed to have attended the College of William and Mary, although there are no records - even among Thomas Jefferson’s papers - indicating that he received higher education at the school <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> Instead, George may have attended the College’s grammar school to receive a moral upbringing and more structured lessons in Greek and Latin <ref>Ibid.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation - a single day’s ride - supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William and Mary building in a young child’s handwriting <ref>Ibid.</ref> Grammar school students often began their studies when they were twelve or thirteen years old, but Wythe may have attended as early as ages nine or ten <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe likely did not stay at the William and Mary grammar school for very long, because his mother sent George to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, husband of Margaret’s sister, Elizabeth, to receive legal training <ref>Ibid.</ref> This likely happened when George was around fifteen years old <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> It was imperative that George be trained in a profession since he had no claim to the family land <ref>Ibid., 35.</ref><br />
<br />
Dewey was a well-respected lawyer. Among his accomplishments was his license to practice at the highest-ranking colonial court (the General Court), at which the governor presided <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> As is already mentioned, George was unsatisfied with Dewey’s approach to teaching, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to George <ref>Ibid.</ref> Under normal apprenticing, Wythe would have completed some tedious tasks for Dewey in return for a legal education; however, Dewey considered Wythe more as a servant than an apprentice, and Wythe did not learn much from him <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
After his apprenticeship, Wythe returned home and studied law and classical languages by himself for a few years <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=36934Wythe's Early Life2015-03-24T20:46:53Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, at his family’s plantation Chesterville <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref>. Wythe’s ancestors were likely an aristocratic family in Elizabeth City County <ref>William Edwin Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 5.</ref> Although not much information is known about the family, George Wythe “used a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified a noble background in Wythe’s era <ref>Ibid., 5-6.</ref><br />
<br />
George was the son of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 3.</ref> Thomas Wythe I settled in Virginia around 1680, bringing with him a 10-year old son, Thomas II <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas I, supposedly the Wythe who immigrated to the colony, was a justice on the Elizabeth City county court and served a term as a burgess in the lower house of Assembly <ref>Ibid., 4.</ref> Thomas I died in 1693 or 1694 <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 8.</ref> He was survived by wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II was born in 1670 <ref>Ibid., 9.</ref> Thomas Wythe II married Anne Shepard/Sheppard. Thomas II sat on the county court but passed away in 1694 at the age of about 24 <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> His death occurred only a few months after his father died <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 10.</ref> Thomas II was the second husband to wife Ann Sheppard, who then remarried again after Thomas II died <ref>Ibid., 9-11.</ref> Through Ann’s various marriages, George Wythe was at least distantly related to many upper-class Virginia families <ref>Ibid., 11.</ref><br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 4.</ref> Thomas III was very publically active, serving on the county court and holding the office of county sheriff <ref>Ibid.</ref> Served as a burgess in the Assemblies from 1718-1720 and 1723-1726 <ref>Ibid.</ref> Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in 1719 <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Margaret Walker’s grandfather was George Keith, an erstwhile Quaker with a band of followers known as “Keithians” <ref>Ibid., 4-5</ref> Keith was jailed at least six times for his missionary work <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 13.</ref> By the end of his life, Keith had become Anglican, which was ironic since he had spent much of his early life trying to convert people away from Anglicanism <ref>Ibid., 14.</ref><br />
<br />
Keith’s daughter, Anne Keith Walker, married George Walker, a devout Quaker who did a variety of maritime-related work throughout his life <ref>Ibid., 16-19.</ref> Anne later converted to the Anglican faith, leading to disputes between them over the education of their children <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 5-6.</ref> Anne even made a formal petition to Virginia’s Council at Williamsburg in an effort to raise her children under the Anglican church <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 23.</ref> Nevertheless, the pair’s daughter, Margaret Walker, was raised in the Quaker religion at a home not distant from that of Thomas Wythe III <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> <br />
<br />
Margaret Walker and Thomas Wythe III married in either 1719 or 1720 <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 26.</ref> Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of which was George <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 6.</ref> George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref><br />
<br />
Shortly after George’s birth, Thomas Wythe III passed away, leaving Margaret Wythe to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 7.</ref> Thomas III died in 1729 without a will, so, as the oldest son, Thomas IV inherited everything according to the system of primogeniture <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 31.</ref> Margaret likely died in 1746 <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref><br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provide inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son. Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though his mother helped him learn Greek <ref>Ibid., 7.</ref> Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin <ref>Ibid.</ref> In contrast, Henry Clay - like Jefferson - believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek, not in Latin <ref>Ibid.</ref> Despite this education, Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training <ref>Ibid., 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education from either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, both of which were grammar schools near Chesterville <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 32.</ref> Wythe received his knowledge of classical languages from his mother, however, who reportedly taught him basic Latin grammar and possibly some Greek <ref>Ibid., 32-33.</ref> Wythe’s education from his mother was probably supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William and Mary <ref>Ibid., 34.</ref> This likely happened in or around 1735 <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
George is often assumed to have attended the College of William and Mary, although there are no records - even among Thomas Jefferson’s papers - indicating that he received higher education at the school <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8.</ref> Instead, George may have attended the College’s grammar school to receive a moral upbringing and more structured lessons in Greek and Latin <ref>Ibid.</ref> The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation - a single day’s ride - supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student <ref>Ibid.</ref> In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William and Mary building in a young child’s handwriting <ref>Ibid.</ref> Grammar school students often began their studies when they were twelve or thirteen years old, but Wythe may have attended as early as ages nine or ten <ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
Wythe likely did not stay at the William and Mary grammar school for very long, because his mother sent George to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, husband of Margaret’s sister, Elizabeth, to receive legal training <ref>Ibid.</ref> This likely happened when George was around fifteen years old <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37.</ref> It was imperative that George be trained in a profession since he had no claim to the family land <ref>Ibid., 35.</ref><br />
<br />
Dewey was a well-respected lawyer. Among his accomplishments was his license to practice at the highest-ranking colonial court (the General Court), at which the governor presided <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 9.</ref> As is already mentioned, George was unsatisfied with Dewey’s approach to teaching, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to George <ref>Ibid.</ref> Under normal apprenticing, Wythe would have completed some tedious tasks for Dewey in return for a legal education; however, Dewey considered Wythe more as a servant than an apprentice, and Wythe did not learn much from him <ref>Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'', 37-38.</ref><br />
<br />
After his apprenticeship, Wythe returned home and studied law and classical languages by himself for a few years <ref>Ibid., 39.</ref><br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=36916Wythe's Early Life2015-03-24T20:27:56Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, at his family’s plantation Chesterville <ref>Alonzo Thomas Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 3.</ref>. Wythe’s ancestors were likely an aristocratic family in Elizabeth City County <ref>William Edwin Hemphill, ''George Wythe The Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia'' (1939), 5.</ref>. Although not much information is known about the family, George Wythe “used a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified a noble background in Wythe’s era <ref>Ibid., 5-6)</ref>.<br />
<br />
George was the son of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker <ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 3)</ref>. Thomas Wythe I settled in Virginia around 1680, bringing with him a 10-year old son, Thomas II (Dill 3). Thomas I, supposedly the Wythe who immigrated to the colony, was a justice on the Elizabeth City county court and served a term as a burgess in the lower house of Assembly (Dill 4). Thomas I died in 1693 or 1694 (Hemphill 8). He was survived by wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II (Hemphill 8).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II was born in 1670 (Hemphill 9). Thomas Wythe II married Anne Shepard/Sheppard. Thomas II sat on the county court but passed away in 1694 at the age of about 24 (Dill 4). His death occurred only a few months after his father died (Hemphill 10). Thomas II was the second husband to wife Ann Sheppard, who then remarried again after Thomas II died (Hemphill 9-11). Through Ann’s various marriages, George Wythe was at least distantly related to many upper-class Virginia families (Hemphill 11).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed (Dill 4). Thomas III was very publically active, serving on the county court and holding the office of county sheriff (Dill 4). Served as a burgess in the Assemblies from 1718-1720 and 1723-1726 (Dill 4). Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in 1719 (Dill 4). <br />
<br />
Margaret Walker’s grandfather was George Keith, an erstwhile Quaker with a band of followers known as “Keithians” (Dill 4-5). Keith was jailed at least six times for his missionary work (Hemphill 13). By the end of his life, Keith had become Anglican, which was ironic since he had spent much of his early life trying to convert people away from Anglicanism (Hemphill 14).<br />
<br />
Keith’s daughter, Anne Keith Walker, married George Walker, a devout Quaker who did a variety of maritime-related work throughout his life (Hemphill 16-19). Anne later converted to the Anglican faith, leading to disputes between them over the education of their children (Dill 5-6). Anne even made a formal petition to Virginia’s Council at Williamsburg in an effort to raise her children under the Anglican church (Hemphill 23). Nevertheless, the pair’s daughter, Margaret Walker, was raised in the Quaker religion at a home not distant from that of Thomas Wythe III (Dill 6). <br />
<br />
Margaret Walker and Thomas Wythe III married in either 1719 or 1720 (Hemphill 26). Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths” (Hemphill 26). Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of which was George (Dill 6). George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown (Hemphill 31).<br />
<br />
Shortly after George’s birth, Thomas Wythe III passed away, leaving Margaret Wythe to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne (Dill 7). Thomas III died in 1729 without a will, so, as the oldest son, Thomas IV inherited everything according to the system of primogeniture (Hemphill 31). Margaret likely died in 1746 (Dill 10).<br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provide inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son. Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though his mother helped him learn Greek (Dill 7). Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin (Dill 7). In contrast, Henry Clay - like Jefferson - believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek, not in Latin (Dill 7). Despite this education, Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training (Dill 8).<br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education from either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, both of which were grammar schools near Chesterville (Hemphill 32). Wythe received his knowledge of classical languages from his mother, however, who reportedly taught him basic Latin grammar and possibly some Greek (Hemphill 32-33). Wythe’s education from his mother was probably supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William and Mary (Hemphill 34). This likely happened in or around 1735 (Hemphill 34).<br />
<br />
George is often assumed to have attended the College of William and Mary, although there are no records - even among Thomas Jefferson’s papers - indicating that he received higher education at the school (Dill 8). Instead, George may have attended the College’s grammar school to receive a moral upbringing and more structured lessons in Greek and Latin (Dill 8). The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation - a single day’s ride - supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student (Dill 8). In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William and Mary building in a young child’s handwriting (Dill 8). Grammar school students often began their studies when they were twelve or thirteen years old, but Wythe may have attended as early as ages nine or ten (Dill 8).<br />
<br />
Wythe likely did not stay at the William and Mary grammar school for very long, because his mother sent George to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, husband of Margaret’s sister, Elizabeth, to receive legal training (Dill 8). This likely happened when George was around fifteen years old (Hemphill 37). It was imperative that George be trained in a profession since he had no claim to the family land (Hemphill 35).<br />
<br />
Dewey was a well-respected lawyer. Among his accomplishments was his license to practice at the highest-ranking colonial court (the General Court), at which the governor presided (Dill 9). As is already mentioned, George was unsatisfied with Dewey’s approach to teaching, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to George (Dill 9). Under normal apprenticing, Wythe would have completed some tedious tasks for Dewey in return for a legal education; however, Dewey considered Wythe more as a servant than an apprentice, and Wythe did not learn much from him (Hemphill 37-38).<br />
<br />
After his apprenticeship, Wythe returned home and studied law and classical languages by himself for a few years (Hemphill 39).<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=29684Wythe's Early Life2014-09-26T16:26:54Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, at his family’s plantation Chesterville (Dill 3). Wythe’s ancestors were likely an aristocratic family in Elizabeth City County (Hemphill 5). Although not much information is known about the family, George Wythe “used a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified a noble background in Wythe’s era (Hemphill 5-6).<br />
<br />
George was the son of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker (Dill 3). Thomas Wythe I settled in Virginia around 1680, bringing with him a 10-year old son, Thomas II (Dill 3). Thomas I, supposedly the Wythe who immigrated to the colony, was a justice on the Elizabeth City county court and served a term as a burgess in the lower house of Assembly (Dill 4). Thomas I died in 1693 or 1694 (Hemphill 8). He was survived by wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II (Hemphill 8).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II was born in 1670 (Hemphill 9). Thomas Wythe II married Anne Shepard/Sheppard. Thomas II sat on the county court but passed away in 1694 at the age of about 24 (Dill 4). His death occurred only a few months after his father died (Hemphill 10). Thomas II was the second husband to wife Ann Sheppard, who then remarried again after Thomas II died (Hemphill 9-11). Through Ann’s various marriages, George Wythe was at least distantly related to many upper-class Virginia families (Hemphill 11).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed (Dill 4). Thomas III was very publically active, serving on the county court and holding the office of county sheriff (Dill 4). Served as a burgess in the Assemblies from 1718-1720 and 1723-1726 (Dill 4). Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in 1719 (Dill 4). <br />
<br />
Margaret Walker’s grandfather was George Keith, an erstwhile Quaker with a band of followers known as “Keithians” (Dill 4-5). Keith was jailed at least six times for his missionary work (Hemphill 13). By the end of his life, Keith had become Anglican, which was ironic since he had spent much of his early life trying to convert people away from Anglicanism (Hemphill 14).<br />
<br />
Keith’s daughter, Anne Keith Walker, married George Walker, a devout Quaker who did a variety of maritime-related work throughout his life (Hemphill 16-19). Anne later converted to the Anglican faith, leading to disputes between them over the education of their children (Dill 5-6). Anne even made a formal petition to Virginia’s Council at Williamsburg in an effort to raise her children under the Anglican church (Hemphill 23). Nevertheless, the pair’s daughter, Margaret Walker, was raised in the Quaker religion at a home not distant from that of Thomas Wythe III (Dill 6). <br />
<br />
Margaret Walker and Thomas Wythe III married in either 1719 or 1720 (Hemphill 26). Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths” (Hemphill 26). Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of which was George (Dill 6). George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown (Hemphill 31).<br />
<br />
Shortly after George’s birth, Thomas Wythe III passed away, leaving Margaret Wythe to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne (Dill 7). Thomas III died in 1729 without a will, so, as the oldest son, Thomas IV inherited everything according to the system of primogeniture (Hemphill 31). Margaret likely died in 1746 (Dill 10).<br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provide inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son. Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though his mother helped him learn Greek (Dill 7). Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin (Dill 7). In contrast, Henry Clay - like Jefferson - believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek, not in Latin (Dill 7). Despite this education, Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training (Dill 8).<br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education from either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, both of which were grammar schools near Chesterville (Hemphill 32). Wythe received his knowledge of classical languages from his mother, however, who reportedly taught him basic Latin grammar and possibly some Greek (Hemphill 32-33). Wythe’s education from his mother was probably supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William and Mary (Hemphill 34). This likely happened in or around 1735 (Hemphill 34).<br />
<br />
George is often assumed to have attended the College of William and Mary, although there are no records - even among Thomas Jefferson’s papers - indicating that he received higher education at the school (Dill 8). Instead, George may have attended the College’s grammar school to receive a moral upbringing and more structured lessons in Greek and Latin (Dill 8). The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation - a single day’s ride - supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student (Dill 8). In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William and Mary building in a young child’s handwriting (Dill 8). Grammar school students often began their studies when they were twelve or thirteen years old, but Wythe may have attended as early as ages nine or ten (Dill 8).<br />
<br />
Wythe likely did not stay at the William and Mary grammar school for very long, because his mother sent George to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, husband of Margaret’s sister, Elizabeth, to receive legal training (Dill 8). This likely happened when George was around fifteen years old (Hemphill 37). It was imperative that George be trained in a profession since he had no claim to the family land (Hemphill 35).<br />
<br />
Dewey was a well-respected lawyer. Among his accomplishments was his license to practice at the highest-ranking colonial court (the General Court), at which the governor presided (Dill 9). As is already mentioned, George was unsatisfied with Dewey’s approach to teaching, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to George (Dill 9). Under normal apprenticing, Wythe would have completed some tedious tasks for Dewey in return for a legal education; however, Dewey considered Wythe more as a servant than an apprentice, and Wythe did not learn much from him (Hemphill 37-38).<br />
<br />
After his apprenticeship, Wythe returned home and studied law and classical languages by himself for a few years (Hemphill 39).</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Wythe%27s_Early_Life&diff=29682Wythe's Early Life2014-09-26T16:19:28Z<p>Mnumberger: Created page with "George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, at his family’s plantation Chesterville (Dill 3). George Wythe’s ancestors were like..."</p>
<hr />
<div>George Wythe was born in late 1726 or early 1727 in Elizabeth City County, Virginia, at his family’s plantation Chesterville (Dill 3). <br />
<br />
George Wythe’s ancestors were likely an aristocratic family in Elizabeth City County (Hemphill 5). Although not much information is known about the family, George Wythe “used a book plate bearing a heraldic coat-of-arms,” which typically signified a noble background in Wythe’s era (Hemphill 5-6).<br />
<br />
Son of Thomas Wythe III and Margaret Walker (Dill 3). Thomas Wythe I settled in Virginia around 1680, bringing with him a 10-year old son, Thomas II (Dill 3). <br />
<br />
Thomas I, supposedly the Wythe who immigrated to the colony, was a justice on the Elizabeth City county court and served a term as a burgess in the lower house of Assembly (Dill 4). <br />
<br />
Thomas I died in 1693 or 1694 (Hemphill 8). He was survived by wife Ann, two daughters, and Thomas II (Hemphill 8).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II was born in 1670 (Hemphill 9).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe II married Anne Shepard/Sheppard. Thomas II sat on the county court but passed away in 1694 at the age of about 24 (Dill 4). His death occurred only a few months after his father died (Hemphill 10).<br />
<br />
Thomas II was the second husband to wife Ann Sheppard, who then remarried again after Thomas II died (Hemphill 9-11). Through Ann’s various marriages, George Wythe was at least distantly related to many upper-class Virginia families (Hemphill 11).<br />
<br />
Thomas Wythe III was born around 1691 and inherited his father’s estate, including the land, slaves, and tobacco his family had amassed (Dill 4). Thomas III was very publically active, serving on the county court and holding the office of county sheriff (Dill 4). Served as a burgess in the Assemblies from 1718-1720 and 1723-1726 (Dill 4). Thomas III married Margaret Walker, daughter of George and Ann Keith Walker, in 1719 (Dill 4). <br />
<br />
Margaret’s grandfather was George Keith, an erstwhile Quaker with a band of followers known as “Keithians” (Dill 4-5). Keith was jailed at least six times for his missionary work (Hemphill 13). By the end of his life, Keith had become Anglican, which was ironic since he had spent much of his early life trying to convert people away from Anglicanism (Hemphill 14).<br />
<br />
Keith’s daughter, Anne Keith Walker, married George Walker, a devout Quaker who did a variety of maritime-related work throughout his life (Hemphill 16-19). Anne later converted to the Anglican faith, leading to disputes between them over the education of their children (Dill 5-6). Anne even made a formal petition to Virginia’s Council at Williamsburg in an effort to raise her children under the Anglican church (Hemphill 23). Nevertheless, the pair’s daughter, Margaret Walker, was raised in the Quaker religion at a home not distant from that of Thomas Wythe III (Dill 6). <br />
<br />
Margaret and Thomas married in either 1719 or 1720 (Hemphill 26). Through their marriage, they “blended . . . the landed aristocracy of the Wythes, the business interests of the Walkers, and the liberal intellectual tradition of the Keiths” (Hemphill 26). Margaret and Thomas produced three children, the middle of which was George (Dill 6). George was born sometime in 1726, although the exact date is unknown (Hemphill 31).<br />
<br />
Shortly after George’s birth, Thomas Wythe III passed away, leaving Margaret Wythe to raise George and his siblings, Thomas IV and Anne (Dill 7). Thomas III died in 1729 without a will, so, as the oldest son, Thomas IV inherited everything according to the system of primogeniture (Hemphill 31). Margaret likely died in 1746 (Dill 10).<br />
<br />
George Wythe’s students and contemporaries provide inconsistent accounts of the extent to which Margaret educated her son. Jefferson asserted that Wythe was mostly self-educated, though his mother helped him learn Greek (Dill 7). Edmund Randolph and Daniel Call credited Margaret with teaching George some Latin (Dill 7). In contrast, Henry Clay - like Jefferson - believed Margaret’s influence to be in Greek, not in Latin (Dill 7). Despite this education, Latin scholars have noted that Wythe’s skills do not reflect formal classical training (Dill 8).<br />
<br />
Wythe may have received rudimentary education from either the Syms Free School or the Eaton Charity School, both of which were grammar schools near Chesterville (Hemphill 32). Wythe received his knowledge of classical languages from his mother, however, who reportedly taught him basic Latin grammar and possibly some Greek (Hemphill 32-33). Wythe’s education from his mother was probably supplemented by a short stint at the grammar school at William and Mary (Hemphill 34). This likely happened in or around 1735 (Hemphill 34).<br />
<br />
George is often assumed to have attended the College of William and Mary, although there are no records - even among Thomas Jefferson’s papers - indicating that he received higher education at the school (Dill 8). Instead, George may have attended the College’s grammar school to receive a moral upbringing and more structured lessons in Greek and Latin (Dill 8). The school’s proximity to the Wythe plantation - a single day’s ride - supports the theory that he may have attended as a boarding student (Dill 8). In addition, the initials “GW” were found inscribed in a William and Mary building in a young child’s handwriting (Dill 8). Grammar school students often began their studies when they were twelve or thirteen years old, but Wythe may have attended as early as ages nine or ten (Dill 8).<br />
<br />
Wythe likely did not stay at the William and Mary grammar school for very long, because his mother sent George to live with his uncle, Stephen Dewey, husband of Margaret’s sister, Elizabeth, to receive legal training (Dill 8). This likely happened when George was around fifteen years old (Hemphill 37). It was imperative that George be trained in a profession since he had no claim to the family land (Hemphill 35).<br />
<br />
Dewey was a well-respected lawyer. Among his accomplishments was his license to practice at the highest-ranking colonial court (the General Court), at which the governor presided (Dill 9). As is already mentioned, George was unsatisfied with Dewey’s approach to teaching, which consisted of relegating menial office tasks to George (Dill 9). Under normal apprenticing, Wythe would have completed some tedious tasks for Dewey in return for a legal education; however, Dewey considered Wythe more as a servant than an apprentice, and Wythe did not learn much from him (Hemphill 37-38).<br />
<br />
After his apprenticeship, Wythe returned home and studied law and classical languages by himself for a few years (Hemphill 39).</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Commonwealth_v._Caton&diff=27734Commonwealth v. Caton2014-05-08T13:50:08Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Commonwealth v. Caton''}}<br />
[[File:CommonwealthVCatonPage5.jpg|link=Media:CallCommonwealthVCaton1833.pdf|thumb|right|400px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallCommonwealthVCaton1833.pdf|''Commonwealth v. Caton'']], in vol. 4 of [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/373923 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call (Richmond, Virginia: Robert I. Smith, 1833).]]''Commonwealth v. Caton'', [[Media:CallCommonwealthVCaton1833.pdf|8 Va. (4 Call) 5 (1782)]], is an opinion from the Virginia Court of Appeals<ref>The act creating the highest court in Virginia refers to it as simply the Court of Appeals, An Act Constituting the Court of Appeals, ch. XXII Laws Va. (1779), ''in'' 10 Hening's Statutes at Large 91 (1819), although later sources call it the Supreme Court of Appeals. Thomas Jefferson Headlee, Jr., The Virginia State Court System, 1776-: A Preliminary Study of the Superior Courts of the Commonwealth with Notes Concerning the Present Location of the Original Court Records and Published Decisions 7 (Va. State Lib. 1969).</ref> that included an early version of the doctrine of judicial review, holding that the highest court in the Commonwealth of Virginia had the power to invalidate laws that contravened the Virginia Constitution.<br />
<br />
George Wythe was one of eight justices hearing this case brought before the Virginia Court of Appeals. At the time, the Court of Appeals included Wythe, Edmund Pendleton, and John Blair, Chancellors of the Court of Equity; Chief Judge Paul Carrington and Judges Bartholomew Dandridge, Peter Lyons, and James Mercer of the General Court; and Richard Cary, of the Court of Admiralty.<ref>Commonwealth v. Caton, 8 Va. (4 Call) 5, 5 n. ‡ (1782).</ref> Wythe authored the most notable opinion in the decision, putting forth a view of judicial review that would be influential in shaping John Marshall’s enunciation of the doctrine of judicial review at the United States Supreme Court over twenty years later. <br />
<br />
== Background ==<br />
<br />
At the end of the American Revolution, Virginia began to prosecute citizens who had supported the British during the War.<ref> See Bradley Chapin, The American Law of Treason: Revolutionary and Early National Origins, 60-62 (Univ. Wash. Press 1964).</ref> On June 15, 1782, the Virginia General Court sentenced three men, John Caton, Joshua Hopkins, and James Lamb, to death for treason.<ref>David John Mays, 2 Edmund Pendleton, 1721-1803: A Biography vol. 2 189 (Harv. Univ. Press 1952).</ref> Caton, Hopkins, and Lamb petitioned the Virginia General Assembly for a pardon, which was granted in the House but denied when submitted to the Virginia Senate.<ref> Edmund Pendleton, Pendleton’s Account of “The Case of the Prisoners” (Caton v. Commonwealth) (Oct. 29, 1782), in 2 The Letters and Papers of Edmund Pendleton 416 (David John Mays, ed., 1967).</ref> <br />
<br />
Under the Virginia Constitution of 1776, the Governor had the power to grant pardons, except where the House of Delegates prosecuted the individual, in which case only the House of Delegates had the power to grant a pardon.<ref>Va. Const. of 1776, art. IX, reprinted in WILLIAM W. HENING, 9 THE STATUTES AT LARGE: BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN THE YEAR 1619 115-116 (1821).</ref> The Virginia Treason Act, which was enacted later in 1776, indicated that a pardon for treason could only be granted with the consent of the General Assembly, which consisted of both the House of Delegates and the Senate.<ref>An Act Declaring What Shall Be Treason, 1776 Va. Acts ch. III, reprinted in WILLIAM W. HENING, 9 THE STATUTES AT LARGE: BEING A COLLECTION OF ALL THE LAWS OF VIRGINIA, FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE IN THE YEAR 1619 168 (1821).<br />
</ref> Thus, the language of the Treason Act, enacted subsequent to the establishment of the Virginia Constitution, was in direct conflict with the Virginia Constitution. <br />
<br />
On the day they were to be hanged, Caton, Hopkins, and Lamb presented the sheriff with a copy of the resolution from the House of Delegates pardoning them of treason.<ref>Pendleton, supra n. 4, at 417. </ref> This version of the resolution did not indicate that the Virginia Senate had refused to agree to the pardon.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> The sheriff stayed the execution and kept the men in jail until the General Court could convene to decide the men’s fate in October 1782.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> <br />
<br />
Before the General Court, Virginia Attorney General Edmund Randolph requested a new order that the three men be executed.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> In response, the prisoners produced the resolution of the House of Delegates, this time indicating in full that the Senate had rejected the pardon.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> The defendants’ counsel argued that the pardon was valid under the Virginia Constitution, while the Attorney General argued that the pardon was invalid under the Treason Act because it lacked the consent of the state Senate.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> In light of the “Novelty and difficulty” of the case, the General Court adjourned the case to Virginia highest court, the Court of Appeals.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> <br />
<br />
== Arguments Before the Court of Appeals ==<br />
<br />
The resolution of the question of whether the Court of Appeals had the power to invalidate an act of the General Assembly generated much debate among legal and social intellectuals.<ref>William Michael Treanor, The Case of the Prisoners and the Origins of Judicial Review, 143 U. Penn. L. Rev. 491, 504 (1994).</ref> Indeed, in letters and news reports it was known as “the great constitutional question.”<ref>See Treanor, n. 45.</ref><br />
<br />
Edmund Pendleton, as senior judge on the Court of Chancery, presided over the case.<ref>See Treanor, n. 41. </ref> The Court of Appeals convened on October 29, 1782, with argument being scheduled for the 31st.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> In his account of the case, Pendleton identified three questions that the court should consider: (1) whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear a capital criminal case, (2) whether a court of law could void a legislative act for violating the Constitution, and (3) whether the Treason Act violated the Virginia Constitution of 1776.<ref>Pendleton at 417.</ref> <br />
<br />
=== Attorney General Edmund Randolph ===<br />
<br />
Attorney General Edmund Randolph, argued on behalf of the Commonwealth that the Court of Appeals should not block the execution of the three prisoners. Surprisingly, according to notes sent to James Madison by Randolph himself, Randolph argued that a court did possess the authority to declare a statute unconstitutional but that, in this case, the statute and the Constitution were not inconsistent. <br />
<br />
Under the interpretation of the Constitution urged by Randolph, the House of Delegates had the sole power of granting a pardon only where the House of Delegates had carried on a prosecution. In all other instances, the governor would enjoy the power to pardon, except where a law specifically directs otherwise.<ref>Treanor at 510. </ref> Here, the Treason Act specifically directed that the General Assembly, not simply one branch of the legislature, had the right of granting pardons to persons convicted of treason.<ref>An Act Declaring What Shall Be Treason, supra n. ???</ref> According to Randolph, because the pardon of the House of Delegates was contrary to the statute, the pardon was invalid and the prisoners should be executed.<ref>See Treanor, 506-507 for citation to arguments made by Randolph. </ref> <br />
<br />
Randolph’s opinions on judicial review revealed a distrust of the legislature as a flawed institution that could be subject to mob rule and tyranny if not held in check by a neutral, balanced judiciary.<ref>Treanor at 518-519.</ref> <br />
<br />
=== Andrew Ronald ===<br />
<br />
Andrew Ronald served as counsel for Caton, Lamb, and Hopkins before the Court of Appeals. Ronald argued that review of legislative acts was a proper function of the judiciary.<ref>Caton at 7.</ref> He also urged the court to reject Randolph’s statutory interpretation arguments because the meaning of the constitution was clear.<ref>Caton at 7.</ref> “The act of assembly was contrary to the plain declaration of the constitution; and therefore void.”<ref>Caton at 7.</ref> If the constitutional language was considered ambiguous, Ronald urged the court to construe its interpretation in favor of lenity. Additionally, Ronald gave the judges an option for deciding the case without reaching the question of whether the statute violated the constitution: both the constitution and the act granted a separate pardoning power.<ref>Pendleton at 418.</ref> <br />
<br />
=== Members of the Virginia Bar ===<br />
<br />
In addition to inviting the arguments from the Commonwealth and the prisoners, Pendleton urged members of the Virginia Bar to set forth their opinions in court. Accordingly, three volunteers offered differing opinions as to whether a court could declare a legislative act unconstitutional. These three men were John Francis Mercer, future delegate from Maryland to the Constitutional Convention; William Nelson, later a judge of the Virginia General Court and professor of law at William and Mary; and St. George Tucker, author of an American version of Blackstone’s Commentaries and later judge at both the state and federal levels as well as professor of law at William and Mary. All three argued in support of the prisoners, and at least Tucker and Nelson expressed support for judicial review.<ref>See Treanor at 521.</ref> <br />
<br />
== Decision of the Court of Appeals ==<br />
<br />
On November 2, 1782, the judges of the Court of Appeals delivered eight separate opinions.<ref>See Treanor footnote 160.</ref> Despite the range of arguments, the prisoners ultimately lost their appeal for freedom.<ref>Caton at 20. </ref> As to the substance of the eight opinions, there is some disagreement.<ref>Treanor at 529.</ref> <br />
<br />
=== Dispute over Reporting the Decision ===<br />
<br />
Daniel Call reported the case as ''Commonwealth v. Caton'', 4 Call 5 (1782), 51 years after the decision in 1833. It is unclear what sources Call used to report the case, but it is possible that Call referred to St. George Tucker’s notes on the decision.<ref>Treanor at 532.</ref> The other detailed account of the case is from Edmund Pendleton’s report of the decision in his personal notes. Call’s report of Wythe’s opinion is consistent with Pendleton’s account but more detailed and, thus, “presumably accurate.”<ref>Treanor at 532.</ref> It should be noted that Pendleton provided a detailed report of his own opinion but omitted any account of the other judges’ opinions, stating that “memory will not allow me to do Justice to the reasoning of the other Judges.”<ref>Pendleton at 418.</ref> Where Pendleton and Call are in dispute over how certain judges ruled, Pendleton’s remarks are likely more authoritative, as his notes were made at the time of the decision. Where Call reports Wythe’s opinion in detail, this is likely the best source for what Wythe’s statements and arguments were. <br />
<br />
According to Pendleton, Judges James Mercer and Bartholomew Dandridge both ruled in favor of the prisoners, finding that the pardon from the House of Delegates was valid.<ref>Pendleton at 426.</ref> The six other judges, who ruled that the pardon was void, upheld the Treason Act as constitutional.<ref>Pendleton at 426-427.</ref> Of these six judges, only Peter Lyons wrote that a court could not review the constitutionality of a legislative act.<ref>Pendleton at 426.</ref> On the other hand, only two justices, James Mercer and George Wythe, declared support for judicial review.<ref>Pendleton at 426-427.</ref> Overall, although Wythe expressed a strong argument for the legitimacy and necessity of judicial review, the ''Caton'' decision cannot be said to have created a precedent for judicial review.<ref>Treanor at 531.</ref> Indeed, a letter from Attorney General Randolph to James Madison on November 8, 1782, indicates that Randolph believed the court left undecided the matter of judicial review.<ref>Letter from Edmund Randolph to James Madison (Nov. 8, 1782), in 5 MADISON PAPERS, supra note 8, at 262, 263 (“The judges of the court of appeals avoided a determination, whether a law, opposing the constitution, may be declared void, in their decision of Saturday last.”).</ref><br />
<br />
=== Wythe’s Opinion ===<br />
<br />
In Pendleton’s account of the case, he summarizes George Wythe’s opinion:<br />
<br />
: Mr. Chan[cello]r George Wythe. At first doubted of the Jurisdiction but afterward expressed himself satisfied. Urged several strong and sensible reasons of the nature of those used by Lord Abblington, to <br />
: prove that an Anti-constitutional Act of the Legislature would be void; and if so, that this Court must in Judgment declare it so, or not decide according the Law of the land. However that the Treason Act <br />
: was not against the Constitution, and therefore the concurrence of the Senate was necessary to the Pardon of a Traitor, and this paper not a pardon.<ref>Pendleton at 426-427.</ref> <br />
<br />
Wythe ultimately finds that the legislative act does not violate the Virginia Constitution, based on Randolph’s suggested constitutional interpretation, and consequently finds the prisoners’ pardon from the House of Delegates to be invalid. What makes Wythe’s opinion, as reported by Call, such an important historic legal document is his advocacy of the theory of judicial review. <br />
<br />
The first part of Wythe’s opinion contains a forceful, dramatic argument for judicial review. In the wake of the colonial revolt against the British Crown, Wythe frames his discussion of judicial review in terms of tyranny and liberty: judicial review is an instrument of separation of powers that keeps each branch of government from gaining too much individual power. Wythe describes the judiciary as “tribunals, who hold neither [the power of the purse or the sword], are called upon to declare the law impartially between [the legislative and executive branches].”<ref>Caton at 7.</ref> <br />
<br />
Through an anecdote about an English chancellor who declared it was his duty to protect individuals against government, Wythe wrote that the duty of the judiciary<br />
<br />
: “is equally . . . to protect one branch of the legislature, and, consequently, the whole community, against the usurpations of the other: and, whenever the proper occasion occurs, I shall feel the duty; and, : fearlessly, perform it.”<ref>Caton at 8.</ref><br />
<br />
Taking the duty of the judiciary even further, Wythe delivers the most famous passage from his opinion: <br />
<br />
: . . . if the whole legislature, an event to be deprecated, should attempt to overleap the bounds, prescribed to them by the people, I, in administering the public justice of the country, will meet the united : powers, at my seat in this tribunal; and, pointing to the constitution, will say, to them, here is the limit of your authority; and, hither, shall you go, but no further.”<ref>Caton at 8.</ref> <br />
<br />
In powerful language, evoking a dramatic image of the new nation's institutions clashing in the courtroom, Wythe positions the judiciary as a restrictive force preventing the rest of the government from overtaking its limits to the detriment of the populace. This indelible image of the judge as gatekeeper casts the relationship between the branches of government in stark terms and the judiciary as a coequal governmental power.<br />
<br />
''Caton v. Commonwealth'' is less about individual freedoms -- whether the prisoners should be pardoned for treason -- and more about how American government should be structured in light of a written constitution.<ref>Suzanna Sherry, The Founders’ Unwritten Constitution, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1127, 1145 (1987).</ref> This early discussion of the respective powers of the branches of government, and how those powers would be defined and circumscribed, foreshadows later debates about the function of government. Indeed, the boldness of the Virginia judges in confronting unconstitutional acts of the legislature was praised by such leading statesmen as Patrick Henry and John Marshall during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, which met in June 1788 to discuss whether to ratify or reject the United States Constitution.<ref>See Patrick Henry, The Virginia Convention: Thursday, 12 June 1788, in 10 THE DOCUMENTARY HISTORY OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION 1219 (John P. Kaminski et al. eds., 1993) (footnote omitted) (“Yes, Sir, our Judges opposed the acts of the Legislature. We have this land mark to guide us.--They had fortitude to declare that they were the Judiciary and would oppose unconstitutional acts.”); John Marshall, Id. at 1431 (. </ref> <br />
<br />
The “great constitutional question” of judicial review would not be established at the national level until twenty-one years later, when Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, himself a student of Wythe’s at William and Mary, first exercised the power of judicial review at the federal level in ''Marbury v. Madison'', 5 U.S. 137 (1803). It was in ''Marbury'' that The Great Chief Justice held that federal courts are empowered to invalidate an act of Congress that is contrary to the United States Constitution.<br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=George_Wythe&diff=27534George Wythe2014-05-02T15:50:43Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{PersonInfoBox<br />
|imagename=SilvetteWythe1979.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/#######<br />
|name=George Wythe<br />
|1stoffice=Chancellor of the Commonwealth of Virginia<br />
|1stofficedates=December 24, 1788 &ndash; June 8, 1806<br />
|1stofficepreceded=Inaugural holder<br />
|1stofficesucceeded=Creed Taylor<br />
|2ndoffice=Judge, High Court of Chancery of Virginia<br />
|2ndofficedates=14 January, 1778 &ndash; June 8, 1806<br />
|2ndofficepreceded=Inaugural holder<br />
|2ndofficesucceeded=<br />
|3rdoffice=Delegate to the Second Continental Congress<br /> from Virginia<br />
|3rdofficedates=August 11, 1775 &ndash; June 13, 1776<br />
|3rdofficepreceded=<br />
|3rdofficesucceeded=Mann Page<br />
|4thoffice=Member of the Virginia House of Burgesses<br />
|4thofficedates=1754 &ndash; 1775<br />
|4thofficepreceded=Armistead Burwell<br />
|4thofficesucceeded=<br />
|5thoffice=Mayor of the City of Williamsburg, Virginia<br />
|5thofficedates=1769 &ndash; 1770<br />
|5thofficepreceded=James Cocke<br />
|5thofficesucceeded=John Blair, Jr.<br />
|6thoffice=Attorney General, Colony of Virginia<br />
|6thofficedates=1754<br />
|6thofficepreceded=Peyton Randolph<br />
|6thofficesucceeded=Peyton Randolph<br />
|borndate=1726<br />
|bornplace=Elizabeth City Co., Virginia<br />
|dieddate=June 8, 1806 (aged 80)<br />
|diedplace=Richmond, Virginia, U.S.<br />
|restingplace=[http://historicstjohnschurch.org/ St. John's Church]<br />Richmond, Virginia<br />
|residence=[http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Chesterville_Plantation_Site Chesterville Plantation], Elizabeth City Co., Virginia<br />Prince George Co., Virginia<br />Spotsylvania Co., Virginia<br />Williamsburg, Virginia<br />Richmond, Virginia<br />
|education=<br />
|almamater=<br />
|profession=Lawyer<br />Professor of Law and Police (1779&ndash;1789)<br />Chancery Court Judge (1778&ndash;1806)<br />
|spouse=Ann Lewis (1747-1748)<br />Elizabeth Taliaferro (1755&ndash;1789)<br />
|relatives=Thomas Wythe (father)<br />Margaret Walker Wythe (mother)<br />Thomas Wythe (elder brother)<br />Anne Wythe Sweeney (elder sister)<br />
|knownfor=Signer of the [[Declaration of Independence|United States Declaration of Independence]]<br />
|signature=WytheSignatureDeclarationOfIndependence1776.jpg<br />
}}George Wythe (/[http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/George dʒɔː(ɹ)dʒ] [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/with wɪð]/;<ref>"Wythe" is pronounced "with".</ref> (1726-1806) signer of the [[Declaration of Independence]], first law professor in America, and chancery court judge, was born in Elizabeth City County, Virginia. Wythe spent the majority of his life in the Commonwealth, only traveling outside it to attend the Second Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. <br />
<br />
Wythe's impact on American law cannot be overstated. In the course of his careers as lawyer, legislator, judge, and professor Wythe taught a "who's who" of statesmen and jurists:<br />
<blockquote><br />
Among those who shared the magic of Wythe's teaching were [[Thomas Jefferson]], third president, secretary of state, minister to France and governor of Virginia; [[John Marshall]], chief justice of the United States; [Henry Clay]], secretary of state, speaker of the House of Representatives and United States senator from Kentucky; [[Littleton Waller Tazewell|Littleton W. Tazewell]], United States senator and governor of Virginia; [[John Brown]], one of the first two United States senators from Kentucky; and [[St. George Tucker]], [[John Coalter]] and [[Spencer Roane]], justices of the Virginia Supreme Court.<ref>Thomas Alonzo Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg, VA: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 1-2.</ref><br />
</blockquote><br />
Wythe died at his home in Richmond on June 8, 1806.<br />
==Early life==<br />
George Wythe, the second son of Thomas Wythe, III,<ref>Ibid., 3.</ref> and Margaret Walker Wythe, was born in 1726, most likely in the first half of the year.<ref>The exact date of Wythe's birth is unknown, but W. Edwin Hemphill cites the ''American Law Journal,'' 3 (1810), 97, that Wythe died in the "eighty-first year of his age" in June 1806. "George Wythe the Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia," PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1937, 31.</ref> Wythe's father owned the family plantation, [http://crgis.ndc.nasa.gov/historic/Chesterville_Plantation_Site Chesterville], in Elizabeth City County (now Hampton), Virginia, where he was also a local justice and sheriff and served as a member in the Virginia House of Burgesses. When the senior Wythe died intestate in 1729, all his property passed to his oldest son, Thomas IV, leaving young George dependent upon his own resources.<ref>William Clarkin,''Serene Patriot: A Life of George Wythe'' (Albany, New York: Alan Publications, 1970), 4.</ref> He grew up at Chesterville and may have attended the Grammar School at the College of William & Mary<ref>Ibid., 5.</ref> before leaving to study law near Petersburg, Virginia, with his uncle Stephen Dewey.<ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 8-9.</ref> The young apprentice spent three or four years in training. Instead of fond remembrances, Wythe viewed his legal education with dissatisfaction, stating that Dewey "treated him with neglect, and confined him to the drudgeries of his office, with little, or no, attention to his instruction in the general science of law."<ref>Daniel Call, "[[Biographical Sketch of the Judges|George Wythe]]," in ''Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of Appeals of Virginia'' 2nd ed. (Richmond, VA: Robert I. Smith, 1833), 4:xi.</ref><br />
<br />
==Legal and political careers==<br />
In the spring of 1746, Wythe successfully appeared before examiners to procure his license to practice law in the county courts. The license was signed by Peyton Randolph, Lawrence Burford, William Nimmo, and Stephen Dewey.<ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 10.</ref> Wythe's first job was as a partner to Zachary Lewis of Spotsylvania County, and he married Lewis's daughter Ann on December 26, 1747.<ref>Ibid., 10,12.</ref> Sadly, Ann died within the first year of married life on August 8, 1748. In response to this tragedy, Wythe returned to the Tidewater region and began the first of many political appointments as clerk to two powerful committees in the House of Burgesses, the Committee on Privileges and Elections and the Committee on Propositions and Grievances.<ref>Ibid., 12.</ref> <br />
<br />
In 1754, Wythe briefly replaced Peyton Randolph as Attorney General for the colony and qualified to practice before the General Court (the highest court).<ref>Ibid., 17.</ref> The next year Wythe's older brother Thomas died, leaving him the Chesterville plantation. Around the same time, Wythe married Elizabeth Taliaferro, whose father Richard built the couple the house on the Palace Green in Williamsburg now known as the [http://www.history.org/almanack/places/hb/hbwythe.cfm George Wythe House.] Wythe proceeded to serve eighteen years as one of Williamsburg's aldermen, was elected to the House of Burgesses, and became clerk of the House from 1768 to 1775. He continued to practice law, and his clients included George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, and Robert Carter. In 1776, the Virginia House of Delegates elected Wythe a delegate to the Second Continental Congress. There he signed the Declaration of Independence. Wythe later represented Virginia briefly at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia but was forced to leave due to the terminal illness of his wife Elizabeth. When Virginia debated ratification of the Constitution, Wythe served as Chairman of the Committee of the Whole and introduced the resolution calling for ratification.<ref>Ibid., 68-70.</ref><br />
<br />
==Wythe the teacher==<br />
:''Main article: [[Wythe the Teacher]]''<br />
Wythe originally began his teaching career in the traditional eighteenth century manner of instructing apprentices in his legal practice. Historians believe Wythe started instructing apprentices in his [http://www.history.org/almanack/places/hb/hbwythe.cfm Williamsburg home] before 1762 when [[Thomas Jefferson]] began to read law, but no records verify or identify earlier students.<ref>Thomas Hunter, "The Teaching of George Wythe," in ''The History of Legal Education in the United States: Commentaries and Primary Sources'', ed. Steve Sheppard (Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1999), 1:142.</ref> Subsequent Wythe apprentices included [[James Madison, Bishop|James Madison]] (future Episcopal bishop of Virginia and president of William & Mary College) and [[St. George Tucker]] (Wythe’s successor as professor of law and police).<ref>Ibid., 1:143.</ref><br />
<br />
In 1779, William & Mary’s Board of Visitors reorganized the college and created the chair of [[Professor of Law and Police]] &mdash; the first of its kind in America and only the second in the English-speaking world.<ref>William Clarkin, ''Serene Patriot: A Life of George Wythe'' (Albany, New York: Alan Publications, 1970), 141-142.</ref> The Board appointed George Wythe to fill the new chair, making him both William & Mary’s first law professor and the first law professor in the country.<br />
<br />
Wythe lectured twice a week and assigned readings from major legal treatises such as William Blackstone’s ''Commentaries on the Laws of England'' and Matthew Bacon’s ''New Abridgment of the Law''. He also introduced the use of mock trials and mock legislatures to American legal education in an effort to prepare his students for roles as "citizen lawyers." Wythe’s students included future United States Supreme Court justices John Marshall and Bushrod Washington, three future Virginia Supreme Court Justices, and numerous future Congressmen and Senators. In 1789, the Virginia High Court of Chancery, on which Wythe had served since its inception in 1778, relocated to Richmond. This change and Wythe’s growing unhappiness with the direction of academic life at the College caused Wythe to resign his position as professor.<ref>Hunter, "The Teaching of George Wythe," 157-158.</ref><br />
<br />
==Judicial career==<br />
:''Main article: [[Wythe's Judicial Career]]''<br />
On January 9, 1778, Virginia's General Assembly passed an Act creating the High Court of Chancery. Five days later, the Assembly nominated and unanimously elected [[Edmund Pendleton]], Robert Carter Nicolas and Wythe to the bench.<ref>Robert B. Kirtland, ''George Wythe: Lawyer, Revolutionary, Judge'' (New York: Garland Publishing, 1986), 119; Thomas Alonzo Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'' (Williamsburg, Va.: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979), 40.</ref> In addition to their chancery court obligations, an Act of the Assembly in 1779 required all three judges to serve ''ex officio'' on the Court of Appeals with judges from the Court of Admiralty and the General Court.<ref>Dill, ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty'', 40.</ref> This changed in 1789 when the Assembly reorganized the courts and created a permanent Court of Appeals, leaving Wythe as the sole chancellor, and his decisions subject to review by the Court of Appeals.<ref>Ibid., 70.</ref> Wythe retained his position as chancellor until his death in 1806.<br />
<br />
==Death==<br />
:''Main article: [[Death of George Wythe]]''<br />
On May 25, 1806, George Wythe was struck with a severe gastrointestinal malady which most of his contemporaries (and subsequent historians) believed resulted from arsenic poisoning.<ref>Daniel P. Berexa, "The Murder of Founding Father George Wythe." ''Tennessee Bar Journal'' 47 (Jan. 2011): 24.</ref> The culprit believed to have administered the poison to Wythe's entire household was his great-nephew and heir, [[George Wythe Sweeney]]. Also poisoned were [[Lydia Broadnax]], Wythe's housekeeper, and [[Michael Brown]], a young freedman to whom Wythe was teaching Latin and Greek. Broadnax survived the poisoning; Brown did not, and died on June 1. Wythe survived in agony for two weeks, long enough to disinherit Sweeney. The chancellor finally succumbed on June 8.<ref>Ibid., 25.</ref> The great teacher and judge was mourned throughout the Commonwealth with "more column inches of eulogy than had been elicited in Virginia newspapers by the death of George Washington or by that of any other person."<ref>W. Edwin Hemphill, "Examinations of George Wythe Swinney for Forgery and Murder: A Documentary Essay," ''The William and Mary Quarterly'', 3rd Ser., 12, no. 4 (Oct., 1955): 545.</ref> Even at his death, his influence upon the nation was readily apparent. As one commentator wrote, "upon his death in 1806, the nation's President (Jefferson), its Chief Justice (Marshall), an Associate Justice (Washington), the Attorney General (''John'' Breckinridge), U.S. Senators from Virginia (''William Branch'' Giles) and Kentucky (''Buckner'' Thruston), and the most influential state judge in America (''Spencer'' Roane) all were former students of George Wythe."<ref>Hunter, "The Teaching of George Wythe," 161.</ref><br />
<br />
== Further reading ==<br />
:''Main article: [[George Wythe Bibliography]]''<br />
<br />
*Blackburn, Joyce. ''George Wythe of Williamsburg.'' New York: Harper & Row, 1975.<br />
<br />
*Brown, Imogene E. ''American Aristides: A Biography of George Wythe.'' Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, c1981.<br />
<br />
*Clarkin, William. ''Serene Patriot: A Life of George Wythe.'' Albany, New York: Alan Publications, 1970.<br />
<br />
*Dill, Alonzo Thomas. ''George Wythe: Teacher of Liberty.'' Williamsburg, Va.: Virginia Independence Bicentennial Commission, 1979.<br />
<br />
*Hemphill, William Edwin. [[George Wythe the Colonial Briton|"George Wythe the Colonial Briton: A Biographical Study of the Pre-Revolutionary Era in Virginia"]]. PhD diss., University of Virginia, 1937.<br />
<br />
*Hemphill, William Edwin. "[[George Wythe: America’s First Law Professor and the Teacher of Jefferson, Marshall and Clay]]." Masters thesis, Emory University, 1933.<br />
<br />
*Holt, Wythe. "[[George Wythe: Early Modern Judge]]," ''Alabama Law Review'' 58 (2007), 1009-1039.<br />
<br />
*Hunter, Thomas. "[[Teaching of George Wythe|The Teaching of George Wythe]]." In ''The History of Legal Education in the United States: Commentaries and Primary Sources'', edited by Steve Sheppard, 1:138-168. Pasadena, CA: Salem Press, 1999.<br />
<br />
*Kirtland, Robert Bevier. ''George Wythe: Lawyer, Revolutionary, Judge''. New York: Garland, 1986.<br />
<br />
*Shewmake, Oscar L. ''[http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1374/ The Honourable George Wythe: Teacher, Lawyer, Jurist, Statesman: An Address Delivered Before the Wythe Law Club of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, Dec. 18, 1921]''. Richmond, Va., 1950.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references /><br />
<br />
[[Category:Aspects of Wythe's Life]]<br />
[[Category:Biographies]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=27532Bolling v. Bolling2014-05-02T15:11:02Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's Case Book contains an entry dated December 2, 1770, that indicates the parties involved in the Bolling litigation, the procedural posture of the case, and the costs charged and received. The full text of the entry is: "Archbld. Bolling v. Robt. Bolling (Buckingham). Case in Canc. Referred to arbitration. Desired by R. Bolling to state it with arguments at length in writing. Charge £5.—1771 Sep. 13. Recd. £9-17."<br />
<br />
Not many materials from 18th century American legal cases survive<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
:''Main article: [[Edward Bolling's Will]]''<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson began simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson then asserted that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supported the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argued that emblements were not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather were of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly noted that he and Wythe both agreed that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should have passed naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim summarily, in spite his own opening arguments, at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserted that the statute did not affect property rights at all but rather ensured that a planted crop would be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops, Jefferson concluded, was simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputed Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argued that the language constituted a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claimed that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and stated that he would prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argued that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implied not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would have been empty and meaningless if Edward had not also intended to give to Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduced parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
=== Transcript of Wankford v. Wankford ===<br />
<br />
The ''Bolling'' manuscript next contains a transcript of the 1703 English case ''Wankford v. Wankford'', which Jefferson had relied on for an alternative explanation as to why the gift of Edward's book to Robert was also a gift to Robert of the book's credits. Jefferson noted that the case was too long to be transcribed but that a reader could later turn to it and see that it was dispositive on Jefferson's point. The transcription is in the script of Jefferson's friend, Anderson Bryant. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
The second round of arguments made in the case largely echoed the first, refining certain points for the arbitrator's benefit. Wythe begins his second argument by complimenting Jefferson's use of the common law, admitting that Jefferson accurately stated the common law position on emblements. Wythe countered, however, that that interpretation should not have been controlling, as the Virginia statute on slave labor had altered the common law. Thus, as he argued earlier, the crops should not have gone with the land to Robert but instead to Archibald, the residuary legatee, as personal property. <br />
<br />
Wythe also disputed Jefferson's definition of "assets," claiming that the crops should have been considered assets as part of the estate and thus given to Archibald. Again, Wythe claimed that Edward's book did not give all the debts to Robert but instead were part of the residuum, due to the Plaintiff. Wythe's second argument largely recapitulated his first argument, emphasizing that the crops and the surplus debt should have belonged to Archibald. <br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
Jefferson began his second argument by disputing Wythe's contention that the statute altered the common law rule of emblements, which, if applied, would mean that Robert should have been entitled to the crops growing on Edward's land at the time of his death. Jefferson directed the arbitrator's attention to the text of the statute, claiming that "you will not find a syllable expressing that the emblements are to be taken from the devisee; nor yet that they are to be given to any other person." Jefferson states that Wythe's interpretation strays from "nature and reason," contorting the law so that it fit Wythe's assertion that the crops are annexed to the labor required to harvest them and thus belonging to Archibald. <br />
<br />
Jefferson claimed that just because Edward did not specify that the emblements were to be given to Robert Bolling along with the Buffalo-Lick plantation, the law should not be interpreted to mean that the emblements are not part of the plantation. In fact, Jefferson asserted, the common law very clearly includes the emblements as part of the real property; to add language including the emblements would have been "surplusage." The remainder of Jefferson's second argument was devoted to rebutting Wythe's arguments about the meaning of the "book," with Jefferson inserting barbed responses to Wythe's arguments and criticisms. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe responded to his mentee's arguments with a lengthy final reply occupying sixty-two manuscript pages. As with the second arguments, Wythe largely repeated his earlier assertions, this time punctuating his reply with critiques of trivial details of Jefferson's arguments. <br />
<br />
== References ==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External links==<br />
<br />
*[http://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/media_player?mets_filename=evm00001277mets.xml "Robert Bolling,"] ''Encyclopedia Virginia.''</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=De_Veritate_Religionis_Christianae&diff=24276De Veritate Religionis Christianae2014-03-31T17:16:05Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''De veritate religionis Christianae''}}<br />
===by Hugo Grotius===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=GrotiusVeritateReligionisChristianae1696TitlePage.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3714551<br />
|shorttitle=De Veritate Religionis Christianae<br />
|author=Hugo Grotius<br />
|edition=Editio novissima<br />
|lang=Latin<br />
|publoc=Amstelaedami<br />
|publisher=Apud Henricum Wetstenium<br />
|year=1696<br />
|pages=[8], 296<br />
|desc=8vo (16 cm.)<br />
}}[[File:GrotiusDeVeritate1696Illustration.jpg|left|thumb|250px|<center>Half-title.</center>]] <br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_grotius Hugo Grotius] (1583-1645) is often touted as the "Father of International Law."<ref>Sean Murphy, ''Principles of International Law'', (Minnesota: Thompson West, 2006), chap. 3.</ref> Grotius influenced thinkers like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke John Locke] with his ideas of international law as natural law, or principles derived inherently from the human nature or human reason.<ref>Jeremy Waldron, ''God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought'', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 189.</ref> Grotius also wrote extensively on maritime law and the law of war.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Grotius composed a poem titled "Bewijs van den waren godsdienst" in a prison cell in 1620 after having been arrested by Prince Mauris.<ref>Jeremiah Hackett, reviewer, "''Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of His Work "De Veritate religionis christianae" (1640)'' by J. P. Heering; J. C. Grayson,” ''The Sixteenth Century Journal'' 38, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 164.</ref> This didactic poem, whose title translates as "Proof of the True Religion," was first published in 1622 as a defense of Christianity against other religions and atheism.<ref>Ibid.</ref>The Latin version of this poem, ''De Veritate Religionis Christianae'' ("On the Truth of the Christian Religion"), was later published in 1640.”<ref>Ibid.</ref><br /><br />
<br /><br />
In this work, Grotius proposed an undogmatic Christianity – bringing him into conflict with Dutch Calvinists who practice confession. He "was an ecumenist ''avant la lettre'',"<ref>Ibid.</ref> meaning he was an advocate of a single Church before there was a general movement toward that goal.<ref>''Wikipedia'', sv "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism Ecumenism]."</ref> The work contains six "books" with the first three touting the merits of Christianity, and the last three attacking paganism, Judaism, and Islam, respectively.<ref>Hackett, “''Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of His Work "De Veritate religionis christianae (1640)'' by J. P. Heering; J. C. Grayson,” 164.</ref> As an ecumenist and apologetic,<ref>''Wikipedia'', s.v. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic Apologetic]."</ref> he identifies the cause of “the disunity and warmongering among Christian nations” as the "multiplicity of doctrines and the authority given to them."<ref>Hackett, “''Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of His Work "De Veritate religionis christianae (1640)'' by J. P. Heering; J. C. Grayson,” 164.</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Listed in the [[Jefferson Inventory]] of [[Wythe's Library]] as ''Grotius de veritate religionis Christianae. 8vo.'' and given by [[Thomas Jefferson]] to his son-in-law, [[Thomas Mann Randolph]]. Later appears on Randolph's 1832 estate inventory as "'Grotius on Christ: Religion (latin)' ($1.50 value)." We do not have enough information to conclusively identify which edition Wythe owned. [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s. v. "[http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe Member: George Wythe]," accessed on November 13, 2013.</ref> on LibraryThing indicates this without naming a specific edition. The [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433.</ref> lists the 1745 duodecimo edition published in Glasgow. Jefferson listed the volume as an octavo, but we do not know the precise edition owned by Wythe. The Wolf Law Library purchased a copy of the 1696 octavo edition published in Amsterdam.<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Bound in contemporary vellum with manuscript title and "626" or "bzb" on spine. Purchased from Daniel Thierstein.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
View this book in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3714551 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
Read this book in [http://books.google.com/books?id=kxBcAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover Google Books.]<br />
<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]<br />
[[File:GrotiusDeVeritate1696Illustration2.jpg|right|thumb|200px|<center>Illustration from first page of text.</center>]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=De_Veritate_Religionis_Christianae&diff=24244De Veritate Religionis Christianae2014-03-31T17:02:15Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''De veritate religionis Christianae''}}<br />
===by Hugo Grotius===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=GrotiusVeritateReligionisChristianae1696TitlePage.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3714551<br />
|shorttitle=De Veritate Religionis Christianae<br />
|author=Hugo Grotius<br />
|edition=Editio novissima<br />
|lang=Latin<br />
|publoc=Amstelaedami<br />
|publisher=Apud Henricum Wetstenium<br />
|year=1696<br />
|pages=[8], 296<br />
|desc=8vo (16 cm.)<br />
}}[[File:GrotiusDeVeritate1696Illustration.jpg|left|thumb|250px|<center>Half-title.</center>]] <br />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_grotius Hugo Grotius] (1583-1645) is often touted as the "Father of International Law."<ref>Sean Murphy, ''Principles of International Law'', (Minnesota: Thompson West, 2006), chap. 3.</ref> Grotius influenced thinkers like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_locke John Locke] with his ideas of international law as natural law, or principles derived inherently from the human nature or human reason.<ref>Jeremy Waldron, ''God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations in Locke's Political Thought'', (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 189.</ref> Grotius also wrote extensively on maritime law and the law of war.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
Grotius composed a poem titled "Bewijs van den waren godsdienst" in a prison cell in 1620 after having been arrested by Prince Mauris.<ref>Jeremiah Hackett, reviewer, "''Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of His Work "De Veritate religionis christianae" (1640)'' by J. P. Heering; J. C. Grayson,” ''The Sixteenth Century Journal'' 38, no. 1 (Spring 2007): 164.</ref> This didactic poem, whose title translates as "Proof of the True Religion," was first published in 1622 as a defense of Christianity against other religions and atheism.<ref>Ibid.</ref>The Latin version of this poem, ''De Veritate Religionis Christianae'' ("On the Truth of the Christian Religion"), was later published in 1640.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
In this work, Grotius proposed an undogmatic Christianity – bringing him into conflict with Dutch Calvinists who practice confession. He "was an ecumenist ''avant la lettre'',"<ref>Ibid.</ref> meaning he was an advocate of a single Church before there was a general movement toward that goal.<ref>''Wikipedia'', sv "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism Ecumenism]."</ref> The work contains six "books" with the first three touting the merits of Christianity, and the last three attacking paganism, Judaism, and Islam, respectively.<ref>Hackett, “''Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of His Work "De Veritate religionis christianae (1640)'' by J. P. Heering; J. C. Grayson,” 164.</ref> As an ecumenist and apologetic,<ref>''Wikipedia'', s.v. "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetic Apologetic]."</ref> he identifies the cause of “the disunity and warmongering among Christian nations” as the "multiplicity of doctrines and the authority given to them."<ref>Hackett, “''Hugo Grotius as Apologist for the Christian Religion: A Study of His Work "De Veritate religionis christianae (1640)'' by J. P. Heering; J. C. Grayson,” 164.</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Listed in the [[Jefferson Inventory]] of [[Wythe's Library]] as ''Grotius de veritate religionis Christianae. 8vo.'' and given by [[Thomas Jefferson]] to his son-in-law, [[Thomas Mann Randolph]]. Later appears on Randolph's 1832 estate inventory as "'Grotius on Christ: Religion (latin)' ($1.50 value)." We do not have enough information to conclusively identify which edition Wythe owned. [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s. v. "[http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe Member: George Wythe]," accessed on November 13, 2013.</ref> on LibraryThing indicates this without naming a specific edition. The [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433.</ref> lists the 1745 duodecimo edition published in Glasgow. Jefferson listed the volume as an octavo, but we do not know the precise edition owned by Wythe. The Wolf Law Library purchased a copy of the 1696 octavo edition published in Amsterdam.<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Bound in contemporary vellum with manuscript title and "626" or "bzb" on spine. Purchased from Daniel Thierstein.<br /><br />
<br /><br />
View this book in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3714551 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
==External Links==<br />
Read this book in [http://books.google.com/books?id=kxBcAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover Google Books.]<br />
<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:Religion]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]<br />
[[File:GrotiusDeVeritate1696Illustration2.jpg|right|thumb|200px|<center>Illustration from first page of text.</center>]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Cases_in_Law_and_Equity&diff=23890Cases in Law and Equity2014-03-27T18:53:10Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by Robert Lucas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''Cases in Law and Equity''}}<br />
<big>''Cases in Law and Equity, Chiefly During the Time the Late Earl of Macclesfield Presided in the Courts of King's-Bench and Chancery''</big><br />
===by Robert Lucas===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=LucasCasesInLawAndEquity1736.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926<br />
|shorttitle=Cases in Law and Equity<br />
|author=Robert Lucas<br />
|publoc=London, In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling (assigns of Edw. Sayer, Esq;) for T. Ward and E. Wicksteed<br />
|year=1736<br />
|edition=First<br />
|lang=English<br />
|pages=ii, 538, [94] <br />
|desc=Folio (34 cm.)<br />
}}Not much is known about Robert Lucas other than that he was a barrister who left the legal profession to become a minister in the county of York.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters Arranged and Characterized with Incidental Remarks'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882), 386.</ref> First published in 1736, the reporter ''Cases in Law and Equity'' includes cases out of the courts of law and equity from 1709-1721<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol. VI (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 554.</ref> and is ascribed to Lucas in subsequent editions of 1741 and 1769.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In 1769, this reporter was included as the tenth volume of the twelve volume collection ''[[Modern Reports]]''.<ref>Ibid., 349, 352</ref> The work does not possess much authority and has been cited infrequently.<ref>Ibid.</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Listed in the [[Jefferson Inventory]] of [[Wythe's Library]] as "Cases in L. & Eq. or 10th. Modern. fol." and kept by [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Jefferson later sold a copy to the Library of Congress in 1815, but the volume no longer survives to verify Wythe's previous ownership.<ref>E. Millicent Sowerby, ''Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson'', 2nd ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 2:346 [no.2075].</ref> Both the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> and [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s. v. [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe "Member: George Wythe"] accessed on March 4, 2014.</ref> on LibraryThing list the first edition (1736) of this title. The Wolf Law Library followed their recommendations and moved a copy of the same edition from another rare book collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Rebound in period style with blue title label and marbled endpapers. Purchased through the generosity of Daniel W. Baran and Lena Stratton Baran, Class of 1936. <br />
<br />
View this book in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Modern_Reports&diff=23886Modern Reports2014-03-27T18:44:30Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Modern Reports''}}<br />
<big>''Modern Reports, or, Select Cases Adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas, and Exchequer: Since the Restoration of His Majesty King Charles II''</big><br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=ModernReports1725v1.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/534940<br />
|shorttitle=Modern Reports<br />
|vol=volume one<br />
|author=Great Britain<br />
|publoc=In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by Eliz. Nutt and R. Gosling, (Assigns of Edward Sayer Esq;) for D. Browne ... [and 9 others]<br />
|year=1720-1733<br />
|edition=Third<br />
|lang=English<br />
|set=7<br />
|desc=Folio (32 cm.)<br />
}}''Modern Reports'' is the title of a collection of twelve volumes of English common law reports that had previously been published separately. These volumes were published intermittently in various editions between 1682 and 1738, with the first five volumes individually bearing the title ''Modern Reports'' and further volumes bearing unique titles.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 348</ref> No multivolume collection of ''Modern Reports'' appeared until 1741, when the first six volumes were published together as ''Modern Reports'', fourth edition.<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
All twelve volumes did not appear as a collection until 1769, and it was not until 1793-1796 that a fully modernized and supplemented version was published in London by the respected barrister and professional editor Thomas Leach.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 352-53</ref> ''Leach’s Modern Reports'' was considered the standard version of this collection due to its extensive editorial corrections and additions.<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
[[File:ModernCasesArguedAndAdjudged1725TitlePage.jpg|left|thumb|200px|<center>Title page, volume six.</center>]]<br />
These twelve volumes included reports of cases out of the courts of law and equity from 1669-1755 compiled by various known and anonymous reporters.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 554-5</ref> As with other reports, their accuracy and authority vary greatly.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In fact, some volumes were so ill-regarded that courts would outright reject any citation to them.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 184</ref> In the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holt_%28Lord_Chief_Justice%29 Lord Holt] on use of the forth volume in court, “See the inconveniences of these scrambling reports; they will make us appear to posterity for a parcel of blockheads.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Scholars have regarded other volumes as more accurate.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 55</ref> American scholar William Green claims, “I feel a gratitude to the unknown authors of them and consider that my success in life, which has been considerable, is owing in a great measure to them.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Wallace 355. However, he goes on to explain that he does not regard all of the volumes equally.<ref>Ibid.</ref> “I am fond of examining the better volumes of Modern. The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th modern are but so so; 8th and 11th are execrable; but 1st, 2d, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Modern deserve a place in the better class of the old Reporters, especially 2d, 6th, and 12th.” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Regardless of how these reports appear today, they represent a substantial improvement over the reports of the previous period.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 559</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Both [[Dean Bibliography|Dean's Memo]]<ref>[[Dean Bibliography|Memorandum from Barbara C. Dean]], Colonial Williamsburg Found., to Mrs. Stiverson, Colonial Williamsburg Found. (June 16, 1975), 12 (on file at Wolf Law Library, College of William & Mary).</ref> and the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> suggest Wythe owned ''Modern Reports'' based on notes in John Marshall's commonplace book.<ref>''The Papers of John Marshall,'' eds. Herbert A. Johnson, Charles T. Cullen, and Nancy G. Harris (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, in association with the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1974), 1:44.</ref> Brown also notes that Wythe cited the second volume of ''Modern Reports'' in his case report for the ''Case Upon the Statute for Distribution'': "The case between Smith and Tracey (2 Mod. rep 204) was, A dies intestate, having three brothers, B, C, and D...."<ref>George Wythe, ''Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery'' ed. B. B. Minor, 2nd ed. (Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1852), 306.</ref> Dean lists the fourth edition (1757-1759) as mentioned by the editors of Marshall's papers. Brown suggests the third edition (1720-1733) for volumes one through six, the second edition of volumes seven (1725) and twelve (1741), and the first editions of volumes eight through eleven (1730-1737). The Wolf Law Library moved a copy of the third edition from the general rare books collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Volumes one through four and volume six rebound in period style. Volume five bound in full contemporary calf with blind-tooling to boards. Spine features six raised bands and a red morocco, gilt-lettered label. Set includes ''Modern Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of King's Bench at Westminster: in the Reign of Her Late Majesty Q. Anne, in the Time when Sir John Holt sat Chief-Justice There'' (2nd ed., London, In the Savoy: Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling, assigns of Edward Sayer, for John Walthoe, 1725) as volume seven. Volume seven bound in contemporary blind-tooled calf, rebacked in period style. The George Wythe Collection also includes [[Cases in Law and Equity|Lucas' ''Reports'']], cited as volume ten of ''Modern Reports''.<br />
<br />
View [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/534940 volumes one through six] and [[https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3739869 volume seven] in William & Mary's online catalog.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Common Pleas Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Exchequer Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Cases_in_Law_and_Equity&diff=23880Cases in Law and Equity2014-03-27T18:28:45Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by Robert Lucas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''Cases in Law and Equity''}}<br />
<big>''Cases in Law and Equity, Chiefly During the Time the Late Earl of Macclesfield Presided in the Courts of King's-Bench and Chancery''</big><br />
===by Robert Lucas===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=LucasCasesInLawAndEquity1736.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926<br />
|shorttitle=Cases in Law and Equity<br />
|author=Robert Lucas<br />
|publoc=London, In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling (assigns of Edw. Sayer, Esq;) for T. Ward and E. Wicksteed<br />
|year=1736<br />
|edition=First<br />
|lang=English<br />
|pages=ii, 538, [94] <br />
|desc=Folio (34 cm.)<br />
}}Not much is known about Robert Lucas other than that he was a barrister who left the legal profession to become a minister in the county of York.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters Arranged and Characterized with Incidental Remarks'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882), 386.</ref> First published in 1736, the reporter ''Cases in Law and Equity'' includes cases out of the courts of law and equity from 1709-1721<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Vol. VI (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 554.</ref> and is ascribed to Lucas in subsequent editions of 1741 and 1769.<ref>Ibid</ref> In 1769, this reporter was included as the tenth volume of the twelve volume collection ''[[Modern Reports]]''.<ref>Ibid] at 349, 352</ref> The work does not possess much authority and has been cited infrequently.<ref>Ibid</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Listed in the [[Jefferson Inventory]] of [[Wythe's Library]] as "Cases in L. & Eq. or 10th. Modern. fol." and kept by [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Jefferson later sold a copy to the Library of Congress in 1815, but the volume no longer survives to verify Wythe's previous ownership.<ref>E. Millicent Sowerby, ''Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson'', 2nd ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 2:346 [no.2075].</ref> Both the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> and [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s. v. [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe "Member: George Wythe"] accessed on March 4, 2014.</ref> on LibraryThing list the first edition (1736) of this title. The Wolf Law Library followed their recommendations and moved a copy of the same edition from another rare book collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Rebound in period style with blue title label and marbled endpapers. Purchased through the generosity of Daniel W. Baran and Lena Stratton Baran, Class of 1936. <br />
<br />
View this book in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Cases_in_Law_and_Equity&diff=23794Cases in Law and Equity2014-03-26T21:45:29Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by Robert Lucas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''Cases in Law and Equity''}}<br />
<big>''Cases in Law and Equity, Chiefly During the Time the Late Earl of Macclesfield Presided in the Courts of King's-Bench and Chancery''</big><br />
===by Robert Lucas===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=LucasCasesInLawAndEquity1736.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926<br />
|shorttitle=Cases in Law and Equity<br />
|author=Robert Lucas<br />
|publoc=London, In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling (assigns of Edw. Sayer, Esq;) for T. Ward and E. Wicksteed<br />
|year=1736<br />
|edition=First<br />
|lang=English<br />
|pages=ii, 538, [94] <br />
|desc=Folio (34 cm.)<br />
}}Not much is known about Robert Lucas other than that he was a barrister who left the legal profession to become a minister in the county of York.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters Arranged and Characterized with Incidental Remarks'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882), 386.</ref> First published in 1736, the reporter ''Cases in Law and Equity'' includes cases out of the courts of law and equity from 1709-1721 and is ascribed to Lucas in subsequent editions of 1741 and 1769.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In 1769, this reporter was included as the tenth volume of the twelve volume collection ''[[Modern Reports]]''.<ref>Ibid. at 349, 352</ref> The work does not possess much authority and has been cited infrequently.<ref>Ibid</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Listed in the [[Jefferson Inventory]] of [[Wythe's Library]] as "Cases in L. & Eq. or 10th. Modern. fol." and kept by [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Jefferson later sold a copy to the Library of Congress in 1815, but the volume no longer survives to verify Wythe's previous ownership.<ref>E. Millicent Sowerby, ''Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson'', 2nd ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 2:346 [no.2075].</ref> Both the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> and [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s. v. [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe "Member: George Wythe"] accessed on March 4, 2014.</ref> on LibraryThing list the first edition (1736) of this title. The Wolf Law Library followed their recommendations and moved a copy of the same edition from another rare book collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Rebound in period style with blue title label and marbled endpapers. Purchased through the generosity of Daniel W. Baran and Lena Stratton Baran, Class of 1936. <br />
<br />
View this book in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Cases_in_Law_and_Equity&diff=23792Cases in Law and Equity2014-03-26T21:19:13Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by Robert Lucas */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE: ''Cases in Law and Equity''}}<br />
<big>''Cases in Law and Equity, Chiefly During the Time the Late Earl of Macclesfield Presided in the Courts of King's-Bench and Chancery''</big><br />
===by Robert Lucas===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=LucasCasesInLawAndEquity1736.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926<br />
|shorttitle=Cases in Law and Equity<br />
|author=Robert Lucas<br />
|publoc=London, In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling (assigns of Edw. Sayer, Esq;) for T. Ward and E. Wicksteed<br />
|year=1736<br />
|edition=First<br />
|lang=English<br />
|pages=ii, 538, [94] <br />
|desc=Folio (34 cm.)<br />
}}Not much is known about Robert Lucas other than that he was a barrister who left the legal profession to become a minister in the county of York.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters Arranged and Characterized with Incidental Remarks'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882), 386.</ref> First published in 1736, the reporter ''Cases in Law and Equity'' is ascribed to Lucas in subsequent editions of 1741 and 1769.<refIbid.</ref> In 1769, this reporter was included as the tenth volume of the twelve volume collection ''[[Modern Reports]]''.<ref>Ibid. at 349, 352</ref> The work does not possess much authority and has been cited infrequently.<ref>Ibid</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Listed in the [[Jefferson Inventory]] of [[Wythe's Library]] as "Cases in L. & Eq. or 10th. Modern. fol." and kept by [[Thomas Jefferson]]. Jefferson later sold a copy to the Library of Congress in 1815, but the volume no longer survives to verify Wythe's previous ownership.<ref>E. Millicent Sowerby, ''Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson'', 2nd ed. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1983), 2:346 [no.2075].</ref> Both the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> and [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe George Wythe's Library]<ref>''LibraryThing'', s. v. [http://www.librarything.com/profile/GeorgeWythe "Member: George Wythe"] accessed on March 4, 2014.</ref> on LibraryThing list the first edition (1736) of this title. The Wolf Law Library followed their recommendations and moved a copy of the same edition from another rare book collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Rebound in period style with blue title label and marbled endpapers. Purchased through the generosity of Daniel W. Baran and Lena Stratton Baran, Class of 1936. <br />
<br />
View this book in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/213926 William & Mary's online catalog.]<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Modern_Reports&diff=23786Modern Reports2014-03-26T20:55:53Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Modern Reports''}}<br />
<big>''Modern Reports, or, Select Cases Adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas, and Exchequer: Since the Restoration of His Majesty King Charles II''</big><br />
===by ===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=ModernReports1725v1.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/534940<br />
|shorttitle=Modern Reports<br />
|vol=volume one<br />
|author=Great Britain<br />
|publoc=In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by Eliz. Nutt and R. Gosling, (Assigns of Edward Sayer Esq;) for D. Browne ... [and 9 others]<br />
|year=1720-1733<br />
|edition=Third<br />
|lang=English<br />
|set=7<br />
|desc=Folio (32 cm.)<br />
}}''Modern Reports'' is the title of a collection of twelve volumes of English common law reports that had previously been published separately. These volumes were published intermittently in various editions between 1682 and 1738, with the first five volumes individually bearing the title ''Modern Reports'' and further volumes bearing unique titles.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 348</ref> No multivolume collection of ''Modern Reports'' appeared until 1741, when the first six volumes were published together as ''Modern Reports'', fourth edition.<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
All twelve volumes did not appear as a collection until 1769, and it was not until 1793-1796 that a fully modernized and supplemented version was published in London by the respected barrister and professional editor Thomas Leach.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 352-53</ref> ''Leach’s Modern Reports'' was considered the standard version of this collection due to its extensive editorial corrections and additions.<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br />
[[File:ModernCasesArguedAndAdjudged1725TitlePage.jpg|left|thumb|200px|<center>Title page, volume seven.</center>]]<br />
These twelve volumes included reports of cases out of the courts of law and equity from 1669-1755 compiled by various known and anonymous reporters.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 554-5</ref> As with other reports, their accuracy and authority vary greatly.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In fact, some volumes were so ill-regarded that courts would outright reject any citation to them.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 184</ref> In the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holt_%28Lord_Chief_Justice%29 Lord Holt] on use of the forth volume in court, “See the inconveniences of these scrambling reports; they will make us appear to posterity for a parcel of blockheads.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Scholars have regarded other volumes as more accurate.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 55</ref> American scholar William Green claims, “I feel a gratitude to the unknown authors of them and consider that my success in life, which has been considerable, is owing in a great measure to them.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Wallace 355. However, he goes on to explain that he does not regard all of the volumes equally.<ref>Ibid.</ref> “I am fond of examining the better volumes of Modern. The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th modern are but so so; 8th and 11th are execrable; but 1st, 2d, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Modern deserve a place in the better class of the old Reporters, especially 2d, 6th, and 12th.” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Regardless of how these reports appear today, they represent a substantial improvement over the reports of the previous period.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 559</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Both [[Dean Bibliography|Dean's Memo]]<ref>[[Dean Bibliography|Memorandum from Barbara C. Dean]], Colonial Williamsburg Found., to Mrs. Stiverson, Colonial Williamsburg Found. (June 16, 1975), 12 (on file at Wolf Law Library, College of William & Mary).</ref> and the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> suggest Wythe owned ''Modern Reports'' based on notes in John Marshall's commonplace book.<ref>''The Papers of John Marshall,'' eds. Herbert A. Johnson, Charles T. Cullen, and Nancy G. Harris (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, in association with the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1974), 1:44.</ref> Brown also notes that Wythe cited the second volume of ''Modern Reports'' in his case report for the ''Case Upon the Statute for Distribution'': "The case between Smith and Tracey (2 Mod. rep 204) was, A dies intestate, having three brothers, B, C, and D...."<ref>George Wythe, ''Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery'' ed. B. B. Minor, 2nd ed. (Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1852), 306.</ref> Dean lists the fourth edition (1757-1759) as mentioned by the editors of Marshall's papers. Brown suggests the third edition (1720-1733) for volumes one through six, the second edition of volumes seven (1725) and twelve (1741), and the first editions of volumes eight through eleven (1730-1737). The Wolf Law Library moved a copy of the third edition from the general rare books collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Volumes one through four and volume six rebound in period style. Volume five bound in full contemporary calf with blind-tooling to boards. Spine features six raised bands and a red morocco, gilt-lettered label. Set includes ''Modern Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of King's Bench at Westminster: in the Reign of Her Late Majesty Q. Anne, in the Time when Sir John Holt sat Chief-Justice There'' (2nd ed., London, In the Savoy: Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling, assigns of Edward Sayer, for John Walthoe, 1725) as volume seven. Volume seven bound in contemporary blind-tooled calf, rebacked in period style. The George Wythe Collection also includes [[Cases in Law and Equity|Lucas' ''Reports'']], cited as volume ten of ''Modern Reports''.<br />
<br />
View [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/534940 volumes one through six] and [[https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3739869 volume seven] in William & Mary's online catalog.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Common Pleas Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Exchequer Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Modern_Reports&diff=23782Modern Reports2014-03-26T20:45:53Z<p>Mnumberger: /* by */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Modern Reports''}}<br />
<big>''Modern Reports, or, Select Cases Adjudged in the Courts of Kings Bench, Chancery, Common Pleas, and Exchequer: Since the Restoration of His Majesty King Charles II''</big><br />
===by ===<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
{{BookPageInfoBox<br />
|imagename=ModernReports1725v1.jpg<br />
|link=https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/534940<br />
|shorttitle=Modern Reports<br />
|vol=volume one<br />
|author=Great Britain<br />
|publoc=In the Savoy<br />
|publisher=Printed by Eliz. Nutt and R. Gosling, (Assigns of Edward Sayer Esq;) for D. Browne ... [and 9 others]<br />
|year=1720-1733<br />
|edition=Third<br />
|lang=English<br />
|set=7<br />
|desc=Folio (32 cm.)<br />
}}''Modern Reports'' is the title of a collection of twelve volumes of English common law reports that had previously been published separately. These volumes were published intermittently in various editions between 1682 and 1738, with the first five volumes individually bearing the title ''Modern Reports'' and further volumes bearing unique titles.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 348</ref> No multivolume collection of ''Modern Reports'' appeared until 1741, when the first six volumes were published together as ''Modern Reports'', fourth edition.<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br /><br />
All twelve volumes did not appear as a collection until 1769, and it was not until 1793-1796 that a fully modernized and supplemented version was published in London by the respected barrister and professional editor Thomas Leach.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 352-53</ref> ''Leach’s Modern Reports'' was considered the standard version of this collection due to its extensive editorial corrections and additions.<ref>Ibid.</ref> <br />
<br /><br /><br />
[[File:ModernCasesArguedAndAdjudged1725TitlePage.jpg|left|thumb|200px|<center>Title page, volume seven.</center>]]<br />
These twelve volumes included reports of cases out of the courts of law and equity from 1669-1755 compiled by various known and anonymous reporters.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 554-5</ref> As with other reports, their accuracy and authority vary greatly.<ref>Ibid.</ref> In fact, some volumes were so ill-regarded that courts would outright reject any citation to them.<ref>Percy H. Winfield, ''The Chief Sources of English Legal History'' (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1925) 184</ref> In the words of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holt_%28Lord_Chief_Justice%29 Lord Holt] on use of the forth volume in court, “See the inconveniences of these scrambling reports; they will make us appear to posterity for a parcel of blockheads.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Scholars have regarded other volumes as more accurate.<ref>John William Wallace, ''The Reporters'' (Boston: Soule and Bugbee, 1882) 55</ref> American scholar William Green claims, “I feel a gratitude to the unknown authors of them and consider that my success in life, which has been considerable, is owing in a great measure to them.”<ref>Ibid.</ref> Wallace 355. However, he goes on to explain that he does not regard all of the volumes equally.<ref>Ibid.</ref> “I am fond of examining the better volumes of Modern. The 3d, 4th, 5th, and 7th modern are but so so; 8th and 11th are execrable; but 1st, 2d, 6th, 9th, 10th, and 12th Modern deserve a place in the better class of the old Reporters, especially 2d, 6th, and 12th.” <ref>Ibid.</ref> Regardless of how these reports appear today, they represent a substantial improvement over the reports of the previous period.<ref>W. S. Holdsworth, ''A History of English Law, Vol. VI'' (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1924) 559</ref><br />
<br />
==Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library==<br />
Both [[Dean Bibliography|Dean's Memo]]<ref>[[Dean Bibliography|Memorandum from Barbara C. Dean]], Colonial Williamsburg Found., to Mrs. Stiverson, Colonial Williamsburg Found. (June 16, 1975), 12 (on file at Wolf Law Library, College of William & Mary).</ref> and the [https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433 Brown Bibliography]<ref> Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, May, 2012) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433</ref> suggest Wythe owned ''Modern Reports'' based on notes in John Marshall's commonplace book.<ref>''The Papers of John Marshall,'' eds. Herbert A. Johnson, Charles T. Cullen, and Nancy G. Harris (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, in association with the Institute of Early American History and Culture, 1974), 1:44.</ref> Brown also notes that Wythe cited the second volume of ''Modern Reports'' in his case report for the ''Case Upon the Statute for Distribution'': "The case between Smith and Tracey (2 Mod. rep 204) was, A dies intestate, having three brothers, B, C, and D...."<ref>George Wythe, ''Decisions of Cases in Virginia by the High Court of Chancery'' ed. B. B. Minor, 2nd ed. (Richmond: J.W. Randolph, 1852), 306.</ref> Dean lists the fourth edition (1757-1759) as mentioned by the editors of Marshall's papers. Brown suggests the third edition (1720-1733) for volumes one through six, the second edition of volumes seven (1725) and twelve (1741), and the first editions of volumes eight through eleven (1730-1737). The Wolf Law Library moved a copy of the third edition from the general rare books collection to the [[George Wythe Collection]].<br />
<br />
==Description of the Wolf Law Library's copy==<br />
Volumes one through four and volume six rebound in period style. Volume five bound in full contemporary calf with blind-tooling to boards. Spine features six raised bands and a red morocco, gilt-lettered label. Set includes ''Modern Cases Argued and Adjudged in the Court of King's Bench at Westminster: in the Reign of Her Late Majesty Q. Anne, in the Time when Sir John Holt sat Chief-Justice There'' (2nd ed., London, In the Savoy: Printed by E. and R. Nutt, and R. Gosling, assigns of Edward Sayer, for John Walthoe, 1725) as volume seven. Volume seven bound in contemporary blind-tooled calf, rebacked in period style. The George Wythe Collection also includes [[Cases in Law and Equity|Lucas' ''Reports'']], cited as volume ten of ''Modern Reports''.<br />
<br />
View [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/534940 volumes one through six] and [[https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/3739869 volume seven] in William & Mary's online catalog.<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
[[Category:Case Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Chancery Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Common Pleas Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Exchequer Reports]]<br />
[[Category:George Wythe Collection at William & Mary's Wolf Law Library]]<br />
[[Category:King's Bench Reports]]<br />
[[Category:Titles in Wythe's Library]]</div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8166Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-12T18:15:07Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's Case Book contains an entry dated December 2, 1770, that indicates the parties involved in the Bolling litigation, the procedural posture of the case, and the costs charged and received. The full text of the entry is: "Archbld. Bolling v. Robt. Bolling (Buckingham). Case in Canc. Referred to arbitration. Desired by R. Bolling to state it with arguments at length in writing. Charge £5.—1771 Sep. 13. Recd. £9-17."<br />
<br />
Not many materials from 18th century American legal cases survive<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson began simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson then asserted that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supported the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argued that emblements were not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather were of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly noted that he and Wythe both agreed that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should have passed naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim summarily, in spite his own opening arguments, at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserted that the statute did not affect property rights at all but rather ensured that a planted crop would be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops, Jefferson concluded, was simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputed Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argued that the language constituted a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claimed that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and stated that he would prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argued that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implied not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would have been empty and meaningless if Edward had not also intended to give to Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduced parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
=== Transcript of Wankford v. Wankford ===<br />
<br />
The ''Bolling'' manuscript next contains a transcript of the 1703 English case ''Wankford v. Wankford'', which Jefferson had relied on for an alternative explanation as to why the gift of Edward's book to Robert was also a gift to Robert of the book's credits. Jefferson noted that the case was too long to be transcribed but that a reader could later turn to it and see that it was dispositive on Jefferson's point. The transcription is in the script of Jefferson's friend, Anderson Bryant. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
The second round of arguments made in the case largely echoed the first, refining certain points for the arbitrator's benefit. Wythe begins his second argument by complimenting Jefferson's use of the common law, admitting that Jefferson accurately stated the common law position on emblements. Wythe countered, however, that that interpretation should not have been controlling, as the Virginia statute on slave labor had altered the common law. Thus, as he argued earlier, the crops should not have gone with the land to Robert but instead to Archibald, the residuary legatee, as personal property. <br />
<br />
Wythe also disputed Jefferson's definition of "assets," claiming that the crops should have been considered assets as part of the estate and thus given to Archibald. Again, Wythe claimed that Edward's book did not give all the debts to Robert but instead were part of the residuum, due to the Plaintiff. Wythe's second argument largely recapitulated his first argument, emphasizing that the crops and the surplus debt should have belonged to Archibald. <br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
Jefferson began his second argument by disputing Wythe's contention that the statute altered the common law rule of emblements, which, if applied, would mean that Robert should have been entitled to the crops growing on Edward's land at the time of his death. Jefferson directed the arbitrator's attention to the text of the statute, claiming that "you will not find a syllable expressing that the emblements are to be taken from the devisee; nor yet that they are to be given to any other person." Jefferson states that Wythe's interpretation strays from "nature and reason," contorting the law so that it fit Wythe's assertion that the crops are annexed to the labor required to harvest them and thus belonging to Archibald. <br />
<br />
Jefferson claimed that just because Edward did not specify that the emblements were to be given to Robert Bolling along with the Buffalo-Lick plantation, the law should not be interpreted to mean that the emblements are not part of the plantation. In fact, Jefferson asserted, the common law very clearly includes the emblements as part of the real property; to add language including the emblements would have been "surplusage." The remainder of Jefferson's second argument was devoted to rebutting Wythe's arguments about the meaning of the "book," with Jefferson inserting barbed responses to Wythe's arguments and criticisms. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe responded to his mentee's arguments with a lengthy final reply occupying sixty-two manuscript pages. As with the second arguments, Wythe largely repeated his earlier assertions, this time punctuating his reply with critiques of trivial details of Jefferson's arguments. <br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8160Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-11T18:01:38Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson began simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson then asserted that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supported the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argued that emblements were not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather were of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly noted that he and Wythe both agreed that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should have passed naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim summarily, in spite his own opening arguments, at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserted that the statute did not affect property rights at all but rather ensured that a planted crop would be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops, Jefferson concluded, was simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputed Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argued that the language constituted a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claimed that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and stated that he would prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argued that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implied not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would have been empty and meaningless if Edward had not also intended to give to Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduced parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
=== Transcript of Wankford v. Wankford ===<br />
<br />
The ''Bolling'' manuscript next contains a transcript of the 1703 English case ''Wankford v. Wankford'', which Jefferson had relied on for an alternative explanation as to why the gift of Edward's book to Robert was also a gift to Robert of the book's credits. Jefferson noted that the case was too long to be transcribed but that a reader could later turn to it and see that it was dispositive on Jefferson's point. The transcription is in the script of Jefferson's friend, Anderson Bryant. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
The second round of arguments made in the case largely echoed the first, refining certain points for the arbitrator's benefit. Wythe begins his second argument by complimenting Jefferson's use of the common law, admitting that Jefferson accurately stated the common law position on emblements. Wythe countered, however, that that interpretation should not have been controlling, as the Virginia statute on slave labor had altered the common law. Thus, as he argued earlier, the crops should not have gone with the land to Robert but instead to Archibald, the residuary legatee, as personal property. <br />
<br />
Wythe also disputed Jefferson's definition of "assets," claiming that the crops should have been considered assets as part of the estate and thus given to Archibald. Again, Wythe claimed that Edward's book did not give all the debts to Robert but instead were part of the residuum, due to the Plaintiff. Wythe's second argument largely recapitulated his first argument, emphasizing that the crops and the surplus debt should have belonged to Archibald. <br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
Jefferson began his second argument by disputing Wythe's contention that the statute altered the common law rule of emblements, which, if applied, would mean that Robert should have been entitled to the crops growing on Edward's land at the time of his death. Jefferson directed the arbitrator's attention to the text of the statute, claiming that "you will not find a syllable expressing that the emblements are to be taken from the devisee; nor yet that they are to be given to any other person." Jefferson states that Wythe's interpretation strays from "nature and reason," contorting the law so that it fit Wythe's assertion that the crops are annexed to the labor required to harvest them and thus belonging to Archibald. <br />
<br />
Jefferson claimed that just because Edward did not specify that the emblements were to be given to Robert Bolling along with the Buffalo-Lick plantation, the law should not be interpreted to mean that the emblements are not part of the plantation. In fact, Jefferson asserted, the common law very clearly includes the emblements as part of the real property; to add language including the emblements would have been "surplusage." <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Brief explanation of Jefferson's notes.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8158Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-11T17:44:28Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson began simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson then asserted that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supported the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argued that emblements were not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather were of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly noted that he and Wythe both agreed that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should have passed naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim summarily, in spite his own opening arguments, at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserted that the statute did not affect property rights at all but rather ensured that a planted crop would be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops, Jefferson concluded, was simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputed Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argued that the language constituted a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claimed that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and stated that he would prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argued that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implied not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would have been empty and meaningless if Edward had not also intended to give to Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduced parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
=== Transcript of Wankford v. Wankford ===<br />
<br />
The ''Bolling'' manuscript next contains a transcript of the 1703 English case ''Wankford v. Wankford'', which Jefferson had relied on for an alternative explanation as to why the gift of Edward's book to Robert was also a gift to Robert of the book's credits. Jefferson noted that the case was too long to be transcribed but that a reader could later turn to it and see that it was dispositive on Jefferson's point. The transcription is in the script of Jefferson's friend, Anderson Bryant. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
The second round of arguments made in the case largely echoed the first, refining certain points for the arbitrator's benefit. Wythe begins his second argument by complimenting Jefferson's use of the common law, admitting that Jefferson accurately stated the common law position on emblements. Wythe countered, however, that that interpretation should not have been controlling, as the Virginia statute on slave labor had altered the common law. Thus, as he argued earlier, the crops should not have gone with the land to Robert but instead to Archibald, the residuary legatee, as personal property. <br />
<br />
Wythe also disputed Jefferson's definition of "assets," claiming that the crops should have been considered assets as part of the estate and thus given to Archibald. Again, Wythe claimed that Edward's book did not give all the debts to Robert but instead were part of the residuum, due to the Plaintiff. Wythe's second argument largely recapitulated his first argument, emphasizing that the crops and the surplus debt should have belonged to Archibald. <br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
Jefferson began his second argument by disputing Wythe's contention that the statute altered the common law rule of emblements, which, if applied, would mean that Robert should have been entitled to the crops growing on Edward's land at the time of his death. Jefferson directed the arbitrator's attention to the text of the statute, claiming that "you will not find a syllable expressing that the emblements are to be taken from the devisee; nor yet that they are to be given to any other person." Jefferson states that Wythe's interpretation strays from "nature and reason," contorting the law so that it fit Wythe's assertion that the crops are annexed to the labor required to harvest them and thus belonging to Archibald. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Brief explanation of Jefferson's notes.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8156Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-11T17:38:13Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson began simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson then asserted that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supported the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argued that emblements were not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather were of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly noted that he and Wythe both agreed that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should have passed naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim summarily, in spite his own opening arguments, at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserted that the statute did not affect property rights at all but rather ensured that a planted crop would be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops, Jefferson concluded, was simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputed Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argued that the language constituted a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claimed that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and stated that he would prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argued that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implied not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would have been empty and meaningless if Edward had not also intended to give to Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduced parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
=== Transcript of Wankford v. Wankford ===<br />
<br />
The ''Bolling'' manuscript next contains a transcript of the 1703 English case ''Wankford v. Wankford'', which Jefferson had relied on for an alternative explanation as to why the gift of Edward's book to Robert was also a gift to Robert of the book's credits. Jefferson noted that the case was too long to be transcribed but that a reader could later turn to it and see that it was dispositive on Jefferson's point. The transcription is in the script of Jefferson's friend, Anderson Bryant. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
The second round of arguments made in the case largely echoed the first, refining certain points for the arbitrator's benefit. Wythe begins his second argument by complimenting Jefferson's use of the common law, admitting that Jefferson accurately stated the common law position on emblements. Wythe countered, however, that that interpretation should not have been controlling, as the Virginia statute on slave labor had altered the common law. Thus, as he argued earlier, the crops should not have gone with the land to Robert but instead to Archibald, the residuary legatee, as personal property. <br />
<br />
Wythe also disputed Jefferson's definition of "assets," claiming that the crops should have been considered assets as part of the estate and thus given to Archibald. Again, Wythe claimed that Edward's book did not give all the debts to Robert but instead were part of the residuum, due to the Plaintiff. Wythe's second argument largely recapitulated his first argument, emphasizing that the crops and the surplus debt should have belonged to Archibald. <br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
Jefferson began his second argument by disputing Wythe's contention that the statute altered the common law rule of emblements, which, if applied, would mean that Robert should have been entitled to the crops growing on Edward's land at the time of his death. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Brief explanation of Jefferson's notes.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8154Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-11T17:08:02Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson began simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson then asserted that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supported the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argued that emblements were not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather were of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly noted that he and Wythe both agreed that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argued that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should have passed naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim summarily, in spite his own opening arguments, at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserted that the statute did not affect property rights at all but rather ensured that a planted crop would be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops, Jefferson concluded, was simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputed Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argued that the language constituted a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claimed that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and stated that he would prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argued that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implied not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would have been empty and meaningless if Edward had not also intended to give to Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduced parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Brief explanation of Jefferson's notes.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8152Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-11T16:56:44Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reported that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argued that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position was that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," were personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or able to be separated from the land. Because the emblements were not fixed to the land, Wythe reasoned they should not have passed with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posited that the growing crops were like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should have followed the representative of the sower, which in this case was Archibald.<br />
<br />
Wythe next employed an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson would cite for the opposing view, that emblements should pass with the land, Wythe attempted to discredit reporters of case law who supported this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe called him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch became "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contained a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that caused Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involved a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 with that year's crop having been planted, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interpreted the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both were chattel and thus should have passed to Archibald. Wythe asserted it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to reap the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending the crops and the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would receive neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examined the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after Edward's debts had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should have passed to the plaintiff, Archibald. Wythe urged that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve [sic] all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should have passed to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson starts simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson proceeds to use the common law to build upon this assertion that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supports the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argues that emblements are not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather are of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly notes that he and Wythe both agree that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argues that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should pass naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
After surveying the body of case law in support of his position, Jefferson addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. Of particular effect was Jefferson's handling of Wythe's objection that Sir George Croke, an authority reporting a case relied upon by Jefferson, "was then but twenty-seven years of age" when he reported the decision. Jefferson himself was only a year older at the time of the argument and effectively pointed out that Croke may have been young but his work was still viewed as authoritative. After all, at what age does a person's work become reliable? And is the work preceding that age rendered de facto unauthoritative? The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserts that the statute does not affect property rights at all but rather ensures that a planted crop will be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops is simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputes Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argues that the language constitutes a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claims that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and states that he will prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argues that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implies not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would be empty and meaningless if Edward did not also intend to give Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduces parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Brief explanation of Jefferson's notes.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumbergerhttp://lawlibrary.wm.edu/wythepedia/index.php?title=Bolling_v._Bolling&diff=8150Bolling v. Bolling2013-09-11T16:47:06Z<p>Mnumberger: </p>
<hr />
<div>''Bolling v. Bolling'' (1780-1781) centered on a familial disagreement over inheritance that was referred from the [[Virginia General Court]] to arbitration before Benjamin Waller. The dispute involved the will of Edward Bolling and was brought by his brother Archibald Baldwin against another brother, Robert Bolling, who had probated the will and acted as executor. The notes incorporating the arguments in this case are important for their revealing insight into the state of early American law, as viewed and used by attorneys at the time, and because the plaintiff and defendant were represented, respectively, by [[George Wythe]] and his former student [[Thomas Jefferson]].<br />
<br />
== Factual Background ==<br />
<br />
At the center of the litigation between brothers Archibald and Robert Bolling is the will of their brother, Edward Bolling. These brothers were members of an important Virginia family headed by their father, John Bolling, Jr. (1700-1757), whose home was Cobbs plantation, located in Chesterfield County on the north shore of the Appomattox River outside of Petersburg. The Bollings descended from the son of John Rolfe and Pocahontas, Thomas Rolfe. <br />
<br />
John Bolling, Jr., and Elizabeth Bland Blair (niece of James Blair, the first president of the College of William and Mary) married on August 1, 1728, and had seven children. The second of their offspring, John Bolling, III (1737-1800), married Thomas Jefferson’s sister, Martha. The testator, Edward Bolling, was born in 1746 and died in 1770, at which point his will was subject to the controversy between his brothers, Robert Bolling (1738-1775), of Chellowe plantation, and Archibald (1750-1827). <br />
<br />
=== Edward Bolling's Will ===<br />
<br />
{{Main Article:|Edward Bolling's Will}}<br />
<br />
Edward Bolling made [[Edward Bolling's Will|his will]] on July 13, 1769. To his older brother Robert he left his Buffalo Lick plantation and several slaves. Archibald was to receive other lands and was designated the residuary devisee and legatee under the will. <br />
<br />
== The Issues ==<br />
<br />
The arguments made by Wythe for the plaintiff and Jefferson for the defendant revolve around two separate issues before the arbitrator. <br />
<br />
First, the parties disputed whether the defendant, Robert Bolling, was entitled to the crops growing on Buffalo Lick plantation, which had been devised to him by Edward, at the time of Edward's death. Wythe argued instead that the crops should pass to the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, as the residuary legatee to the will, as part of Edward's personal estate. Thus, the issue is whether the crops were part of the land or separable personal property.<br />
<br />
Second, the parties disagreed as to whether Edward's gift of his "book" to the defendant, Robert, was a legacy to him, as executor, of the surplus of the amounts credited to Edward after Edward's debts at his death had been paid. In the alternative, Wythe urged that the surplus was an undisposed part of Edward's personal property that should pass under the will's residual clause to the plaintiff, Archibald. <br />
<br />
== The Case ==<br />
<br />
Archibald brought this case as a Chancery suit in the Virginia General Court, from which it was referred to arbitration because of its complex issues. The General Court was composed of members of the Governor's Council and were, according to Jefferson, "chosen from among the gentlemen of the country, for their wealth and standing, without any regard to legal knowledge." <ref>Jefferson's Reports, 5.</ref> In arbitration, the the case would be heard by an actual lawyer capable of appreciating and interpreting the complications of common law inheritance and property law.<br />
<br />
== Arbitration ==<br />
<br />
Jefferson's Case Book reports that a case was referred to Benjamin Waller, acting as arbitrator. <ref> Jefferson Case Book, no. 233</ref> Waller was the clerk of the General Court and would later become a judge himself. <br />
<br />
=== Wythe's First Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
Wythe first argues that the plaintiff, Archibald Bolling, is entitled to the crops growing on the Buffalo Lick plantation, land that had been expressly given to the defendant, Robert Bolling, in Edward Bolling's will. The basis for this position is that the crops, known under the law as "emblements," are personal chattel (also known as personal property, as opposed to real property) and thus moveable, or separate from the land. Because the emblements are not fixed to the land, they should not pass with the land to Robert but rather to Archibald as the residuary legatee under the will. Wythe posits that the growing crops are like any other personal chattel, such as cattle, furniture, or harvested plants, and should follow the representative of the sower, which in this case is Archibald.<br />
<br />
After outlining the reasons why the emblements should pass to Archibald rather than Robert, Wythe takes an odd tactic. Anticipating the authorities Jefferson will cite for the opposing view, that emblements pass with the land, Wythe attempts to discredit reporters of case law who support this contrary position. In the face of Wentworth's reporting a case in which emblements passed with the land, Wythe calls him "a compiler only, and what he said of the sale or conveiance[,] since he quotes no authority[,] is but his opinion."<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 155.</ref> A case reported by Sir Humphrey Winch becomes "another unauthoritative publication," as it was translated from Winch's original French.<ref>George Wythe, First Argument for Plaintiff, reprinted in Thomas Jefferson and Bolling v. Bolling () 154.</ref> In addition, Winch's report contains a eulogy for Winch himself, a fact that causes Wythe to cast doubt over whether Winch himself actually compiled the reports or whether some anonymous, unauthorized meddler was at work.<br />
<br />
Wythe's final reason for asserting that the emblements should pass to Archibald involves a Virginia statute providing that if a landowner died before March 1 while his crop was in the ground, the slaves working on the crop would continue working until December 25, when the crops would be deemed assets in the hands of the executor and the slaves would be given over to the legatee. Wythe interprets the statute as treating slave labor and the emblements similarly, as both are chattel and thus should pass to Archibald. Wythe asserts it would be illogical for the law to allow Robert to get the benefit of both the slaves' labor in tending to the crops as well as the benefit of being able to own the crops once they had been harvested. Under this scenario, Archibald would get neither the benefit of the slaves' labor for the year nor the harvested crops.<br />
<br />
On the second issue, Wythe examines the text of the will to determine that the surplus left over after the debts from Edward's book had been satisfied was part of Edward's personal property and thus should pass to the plaintiff, Archbald. Wythe urges that the language of the will -- "it is my will and desire that my book be given up to my bro[the]r Robert, and that he recieve all the debts due to me, and pay all that I owe" -- does no more than appoint Robert as the executor of the estate, tasked with collecting Edward's credits and paying off his debts. Wythe concluded his first argument by declaring that the surplus left over after Edward's accounts had been balanced should pass to Archibald, along with the emblements.<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's First Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
In presenting his initial argument in favor of Robert Bolling, Jefferson starts simply with the Latin maxim "quicquid solo, solo cedit" ("whatever is planted in the soil belongs to the soil"). Jefferson proceeds to use the common law to build upon this assertion that, contrary to Wythe's statements and reasoning, the vast body of English case law supports the conclusion that crops growing on the land should pass with the land to the defendant Robert. Using a mass of diverse authorities, Jefferson argues that emblements are not solely personal property, or chattel, as Wythe asserted, but rather are of a mixed nature, in part personal and in part real. Jefferson wryly notes that he and Wythe both agree that the emblements should generally follow the sower or his representative, who would here be Archibald, with one important difference: Wythe claimed that Edward's estate had not determined by his own act, but Jefferson pointed out that Edward's conveyance by will did indeed determine his estate. Furthermore, Jefferson argues that in the absence of any indication from the testator, Edward, that the emblements should belong to Archibald, the emblements should pass naturally to Robert with the land. <br />
<br />
After surveying the body of case law in support of his position, Jefferson addressed Wythe's assertions that his authorities were unfounded by pointing out that if an authority had been cited by the judges at Westminster, then the reporter was probably authoritative. Additionally, Jefferson demonstrated that some of the greatest legal jurists' works, such as Coke and Plowden, were published in French and later translated for the English-speaking world. Of particular effect was Jefferson's handling of Wythe's objection that Sir George Croke, an authority reporting a case relied upon by Jefferson, "was then but twenty-seven years of age" when he reported the decision. Jefferson himself was only a year older at the time of the argument and effectively pointed out that Croke may have been young but his work was still viewed as authoritative. After all, at what age does a person's work become reliable? And is the work preceding that age rendered de facto unauthoritative? The thoroughness of Jefferson's reading of the law impressed Wythe to proclaim at the start of his second argument that "the common law supposed the owner of the soil to have a right to emblements."<br />
<br />
Jefferson next addressed Wythe's use of the statute involving slave labor and the harvesting of crops. Jefferson asserts that the statute does not affect property rights at all but rather ensures that a planted crop will be harvested for the benefit of the community. According to Jefferson, in the event that crops needed to be harvested, reapers could not be hired as easily as they could have been in England, since the work here was done by slave labor alone. Therefore, the legislature provided that the slaves who previously had worked the land would remain and harvest the crops, regardless of whom the slaves belonged to, in order to save the emblements for the good of the community. The labor for harvesting the crops is simply legislatively prescribed as being for the benefit of whoever owned the emblements, regardless of whether that person also owned the slaves.<br />
<br />
Jefferson disputes Wythe’s assertion that the language of the will giving Edward’s book to Robert and directing Robert to pay Edward’s debts served to create the executorship and nothing more; instead, Jefferson argues that the language constitutes a gift of the book to Robert, directing him to pay Edward’s debts but allowing him to retain the surplus without having it pass to the residuary legatee, Archibald. Jefferson claims that Edward intended beneficial effect for Robert and states that he will prove this intention, both by the words of the will and by parol evidence outside the will. <br />
<br />
On the face of the will, Jefferson argues that the word “give” -- as in, “it is my will and devise that my book be given up to my brother Robert” -- implies not just a transfer of the physical object of the book but also its use. Under Jefferson’s interpretation, a gift of the book alone would be empty and meaningless if Edward did not also intend to give Robert the use of the credits contained therein. <br />
<br />
Finally, Jefferson introduces parol evidence from Edward’s overseer and wife to the effect that Edward wanted the surplus from his credits to remain with Robert. In Jefferson’s own words, “this part of the testimony I take to be conclusive. for who can best judge of the test[ato]r’s intention: we who see nothing but the written letter? or those who saw him write it; to whom he repeated and explained the substance of what he wrote; and with whom he often conversed on the subject?” <br />
<br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Second Argument for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
=== Jefferson's Second Argument for Defendant ===<br />
<br />
=== Wythe's Reply for Plaintiff ===<br />
<br />
== Historical Importance of Case ==<br />
<br />
Rare insight into how practitioners used early Anglo-American law. The work of lawyers was rarely recorded in this detail. <br />
<br />
The arguments are sophisticated and highly technical, involving interpretations of existing property and inheritance law. <br />
<br />
George Wythe as attorney rather than judge. <br />
<br />
Thomas Jefferson's brilliance as advocate.<br />
<br />
Wythe and Jefferson facing off against each another as having historical and biographical importance.<br />
<br />
== Jefferson's Notes == <br />
<br />
Brief explanation of Jefferson's notes.<br />
<br />
= References =<br />
<references/></div>Mnumberger