Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia

Virginia. House of Delegates.

Journal of the House of Delegates in Virginia
Title not held by The Wolf Law Library at the College of William & Mary.
Author	Virginia House of Delegates
Editor
Translator
Published	Williamsburg; Richmond: Various
Date	1776-1780; 1780-1806
Edition
Language	English
Volumes	volume set
Pages
Desc.

Published by various presses from the earliest days of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Journal of the House of Delegates records the work and calendar of the legislature.

Evidence for Inclusion in Wythe's Library

Included in the Brown Bibliography due to George Wythe's service as a member of the House of Delegates and a Chancery Court judge. Wythe would have received published copies of the Journal as a result of both roles. The Wolf Law Library has been unable to locate any copies of the 1776 to 1806 journals.

Wythe Mentions in the Journal

Friday, November 22, 1776

The Speaker laid before the House a letter from the Governour, enclosing one from George Wythe, esq. with the proceedings of Mr. John Gibson, on his embassy to the southward, and another from our Delegates to the General Congress, with a resolution of Congress; which letters and papers were read, and ordered to be referred to the Committee upon the State of the Country.

Thursday, October 30, 1777

Ordered, That leave be given to bring in a bill "for establishing a High Court of Chancery," and the Messrs. Jefferson, Richard Lee, Bullitt, Nicolas, Griffin, Harrison of Charles City, Braxton, Randolph, Fleming, Robinson, Prentis and Starke, do prepare and bring in the same.

Saturday, January 3, 1778

An engrossed bill, "an act for establishing a High Court of Chancery," was read for the third time;

Resolved, That the bill do pass, and that the title be, an act for establishing a High Court of Chancery."

Ordered, That Mr. Prentis do carry the bill to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

Friday, January 9, 1778

A message from the Senate by Mr. Lewis:

MR.SPEAKER, — The Senate have agreed to the bill, entitled, an act for establishing a High Court of Chancery" ...

Resolved, That this House will, on Wednesday next, proceed by joint ballot with the Senate, to the choice of three Judges of the High Court of Chancery."

Tuesday, January 13, 1778

The House nominated several persons to be ballotted for as Judges of the High Court of Chancery.

Ordered, That Mr. Jefferson do carry a list of the persons so nominated to the Senate...

A message from the Senate by Mr. Taylor:

MR. SPEAKER, — The Senate are satisfied with the persons nominated by this House to be ballotted for as Judges of the High Court of Chancery, and have not added any person to the list.

Wednesday, January 14, 1778

A message from the Senate by Mr. Carrington:

MR. SPEAKER — The Senate do agree that Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, and Robert Carter Nicholas, Esquires, should be appointed Judges of the High Court of Chancery, without ballotting; they being the only persons in nomination for the said office. And then he withdrew.

The House taking the said message into consideration;

Resolved, nemine contra dicente, That

Monday, April 6, 1778

Pursuant to an Act of Assembly intituled An Act for establishing a high Court of Chancery, the Governor did this day in open Court and in presence of the Council of State, administer the Oaths required by the said Act to be taken by the Judges of the said Court, unto Edmond Pendleton, George Wythe & Robert Carter Nicholas esquires who have been chosen by the Joint Ballot of both Houses of Assembly- and then his Excellency delivered to each his Commission under the seal of the Commonwealth and Signed by him.

Friday, June 18, 1779

The Speaker laid before the House, a letter from the Governor, and George Wythe, Esq. on the subject of the revision of the laws, enclosing a list of the revised laws, and referring to manuscript copies of them accompanying it; and the said letter was read, and together with the said list and copies, ordered to be referred to the consideration of the next session of Assembly.

Saturday, June 21, 1783

The House proceeded to consider the report and resolutions agreed to by the committee to whom was referred the petition of Simon Nathan and other papers respecting the claim of the said Nathan, against the Commonwealth, which lay on the table; and the same being again read at the clerk's table, are as followeth: It appears to your committee, that Mr. Nathan's claim is founded on sundry bills of exchange drawn by Gene­ral Clarke, Colonel Todd, and one by Henry Crutcher, between the months of May and October 1779, an accurate account of which bills and their value they find to have been stated by Governor Jefferson...

It further appears to your committee, that in March 1781, the then Executive applied to two Judges of the High Court of Chancery, Messrs. Pendleton and Wythe, for their opinion, who gave them as follows:

EDMUNDSBURG, March 7, 1781.

Sir, — Relying on the honor of government to keep the case on which my opinion is required out of our Courts of Justice, I see no impropriety in giving it, as you have done me the honor to request: the ground on which it is supposed a Court of Equity might relieve against that acceptance which made a new contract between the Executive and Mr. Nathan, is, that the drawers allege the bills on the Governor and treasurer of Virginia were payable in pa­per money, and in consequence a value was received for them only according to the then depreciation of that paper; on which head a very proper inquiry seems to be, whether the bills themselves pointed out the sort of money that was to be paid for them or the specific value received? I suppose neither, as that would neither have escaped Mr. Nathan in his purchase, nor the Executive in their acceptance, and that the bills were in the usual and general form, requiring the payment of so many dollars for value received; in which case the bills drawn in the wilderness, and circulated through one Spanish government into another, gave no clue to Mr. Nathan to suppose that any other than silver dol­lars were intended, so as to put him on his guard. Again, he might very properly say, I run no risk in allowing spe­cie value for the bills, since if it should prove otherwise, and that any other mode of payment should be proposed by those on whom they are drawn, I can declare the proposition, procure a protest of the bills, and have recourse for my money to the endorser from whom I purchase. He accordingly pays full specie value, and presents his bills, which are accepted, and a mode of payment fixed to the satisfaction of both parties; a large payment is accordingly made, and near a year elapsed before any notice is given to Mr. Nathan that government had any objection to the payment as stipulated. The Executive were deceived indeed, but by whom? Not by Mr. Nathan, who, as he paid the same he demanded, was an innocent and fair purchaser; I will not say that those worthy gentlemen who drew the bills were guilty of deceit or neglect in the mode of drawing the bills, or in not giving timely notice of the different value got for them, since I impute these to the hurry they were in, and the difficulty of conveying timely intelligence; but surely the present difficulty is derived from that source, and it is more just that the State should bear the loss than that it should fall on a man who has the law on his side, is in no fault at all, and who has now lost that advantage a protest at first would have entitled him to, of recurring for his money to the man of whom he purchased the bills.

Thus you discover, Sir, my opinion to be in favor of Mr. Nathan, an opinion however, drawn from general principles, and not from any determination I recollect on the subject. You and the Council will judge of the reasoning, and afterwards perhaps it may give the public more sat1sfaction to have the matter arbitrated in the way you proposed, than to have it rest on my judgment. I have the honor to be, the Council's and your excellency's most obedient servant,

EDMUND PENDLETON

Notwithstanding those to whom the bills were drawn immediately payable, could not have been entitled to more than the value received for them, I think that Mr. Nathan, the endorsee, if he were not privy to that transaction, and actually paid cash, or an equivalent for them at par when he took them up, may equitably, as well as legally, insist upon the assumpsit; because the terms of the contract between the drawers and original holders not appearing in the bill, as I suppose, it could bind only themselves and such as had notice of the terms, and the contract between him and the drawers was entered into without any deception which could make it appear unfair on his part.
If he were not privy to the contract between the drawers and original holders, and had not mentioned any thing of what he paid for the bills, he might have been irreprehensible; but having informed the Executive that he had taken them up at par, if he do not prove that fact, for otherwise the contrary is presumable, because it is in his power to do it, and the other party probably cannot disprove it; I think equity will relieve against the assumpsit upon this principle, that there was a suggestio falsi on his part, and an advantage gained by it. If he knew of the contract between the drawers and original holders, as he did not mention it to the Executive, although what he said of taking them up at par be true, it seems a disputable question whether there can be any relief. It would be going too far to say that in every bargain one party should disclose to the other whatever the former knows and it is the in­terest of the latter to know: a total silence, if the dealing in other respects be fair, may be innocent; but if one disclose part only of what he knows, and concealing the rest, by that means gain an unconscienable advantage, this seems a culpable suppression of the truth, because the other party confided in him, and that confidence was abused by not relating the whole truth. Frivolous as this might appear in a matter of light moment; in this case, I suspect the gain to have been enormous, and suppose Mr. Nathan to have been well apprised of the difference between paper bills, the only money which circulated in this Commonwealth, and gold and silver, I think it a good foundation for controverting his demand.

GEORGE WYTHE

Tuesday, June 1, 1784

Resolved, That the sum of          each, be allowed to the Honorable Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, to be paid by the treasurer on warrant from the auditors, out of any unappropriated money in his hands.
And the said resolution being read a second time was, on a motion made, ordered to be committed to the committee for Courts of Justice.

Friday, June 4, 1784

Mr. Jones of King George, reported, from the committee for Courts of Justice, that the committee had, according to order, had under their consideration the resolution, for making an allowance to the committee of Revisors, appointed under an act, entitled, "an act, for the revision of the laws," for their labor and expenses in executing that important trust to them committed; and had come to a resolution thereupon, which he read in his place, and afterwards delivered in at the clerk's table, where the same was again twice read and agreed to by the House, as followeth:

Resolved, that it is the opinion of this committee, That the sum of five hundred pounds each, be allowed to the Honorable Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, to be paid by the treasurer, on warrant from the auditors, out of any unappropriated money which may come into his hands.

Ordered, That Mr. Jones of King George, do carry the resolution to the Senate, and desire their concurrence.

Friday, November 12, 1784

A motion was made, that the House do come to the following resolution:

Resolved, That the treasurer be directed to pay the money voted by the Assembly, at their last session, to Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, for the revision of the laws, out of money which may be in his hands, appropriated to defray the contingent expenses of government, upon the order of the Executive for that purpose; and the said resolution being twice read was, on the question put thereupon, agreed to by the House.

Ordered, That Mr. Henry do carry the resolution to the Senate, and desire their conccurrence.

Saturday, November 20, 1784

A message from the Senate by Mr. Brown:

MR. SPEAKER, — The Senate have agreed to the resolutions for allowing a sum of money to Obadiah Clarke, and for paying a sum of money to Edmund Pendleton, George Wythe, and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, out of the contingent fund, with several amendments; to which they desire the concurrence of this House. And then he withdrew.

The House then proceeded to consider the said amendments; and the same being read, were agreed to by the House.

See also

• Wythe's Library

References