Difference between revisions of "Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia"
m (→Saturday, June 21, 1783) |
m (→Saturday, June 21, 1783) |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
===Saturday, June 21, 1783=== | ===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: | 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 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: | ||
| + | <blockquote> | ||
| + | EDMUNDSBURG, March 7, 1781. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sir,emdash -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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Hosted by Google | ||
| + | |||
| + | i5 | ||
| + | ·" Thus you di,cover, Sir, my opiniou to be· iu favor of :&fr. Nathan, an opinion iw wev c r, drawn from geuera] principles, and not from any d tcrminat_ion I recoll?ct on the s_ui'.je<:t. You and the Council _will ja?gc of the rea soning·, and afterwards perhaps 1t may give the public more sat1sfactJOn to have the n attcr a rb it ra ted m, tlir: yoll proposed, than to have it rest on my judgment. I have tlic honor to be, the Council's and your cxcc deucy s mo,1 | ||
| + | obedient servant, | ||
| + | EDMUND PENDLETOl\." | ||
| + | "Notwithstanding those to whom tl1c bills were drawn immediat e ly payable, could not have been cntitlr:d v, more than the value received for them, I think that Mr.Nathan, tl1e endorsee, ii' he were not privy to that transaction, and actually paid cash, or an equivalent for them at par when he took them up, may equ it ably 1 as well &s legally, insist upon the assumpsit; because the terms of the contract between the drawers and origina1 hold ers not appear i11f!: in the bill, as I suppose, it could bind only themselves and such as had notice of the term s, and the contract bet weeu 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 an_\ | ||
| + | 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 presu ma ble, because it is in his | ||
| + | power t? do _it, _and the other pany probabl)'. cann t disrrove it; I think equity will_ relieve _again t the assumpsit | ||
| + | upon this prmc1ple, that there was a suggestw falsi on l11s part, and an advantage gamed by 1t. 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 oue party should disclose to the other whatever the former knows and it is the in terest of the latter to know: a total silence, if the dealing in other respects be fair, may be innocent; but if one dis close part ouly o,f, , hat he knows, and concealing the rest, by that mea us gain an unconscienable advanta;;·e, this seems a culpable suppression of the truth, because the other party confided in him, and that confidence was abused by 1101. relating the whole truth. Frivolous as this might appear in a matter of light moment; in this case, I suspect the gai n · to have been enormous, and suppose i\fr. 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 rontroverting· his demand. (Signed,) | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 09:03, 7 May 2024
Virginia. House of Delegates.
| Journal of the House of Delegates in Virginia | ||
 at the College of William & Mary. |
||
| Author | Virginia House of Delegates | |
| Published | Williamsburg; Richmond: Various | |
| Date | 1776-1780; 1780-1806 | |
| Language | English | |
Published by various presses[1] 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[2] 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.
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,emdash -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.
Hosted by Google
i5 ·" Thus you di,cover, Sir, my opiniou to be· iu favor of :&fr. Nathan, an opinion iw wev c r, drawn from geuera] principles, and not from any d tcrminat_ion I recoll?ct on the s_ui'.je<:t. You and the Council _will ja?gc of the rea soning·, and afterwards perhaps 1t may give the public more sat1sfactJOn to have the n attcr a rb it ra ted m, tlir: yoll proposed, than to have it rest on my judgment. I have tlic honor to be, the Council's and your cxcc deucy s mo,1 obedient servant, EDMUND PENDLETOl\." "Notwithstanding those to whom tl1c bills were drawn immediat e ly payable, could not have been cntitlr:d v, more than the value received for them, I think that Mr.Nathan, tl1e endorsee, ii' he were not privy to that transaction, and actually paid cash, or an equivalent for them at par when he took them up, may equ it ably 1 as well &s legally, insist upon the assumpsit; because the terms of the contract between the drawers and origina1 hold ers not appear i11f!: in the bill, as I suppose, it could bind only themselves and such as had notice of the term s, and the contract bet weeu 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 an_\ 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 presu ma ble, because it is in his power t? do _it, _and the other pany probabl)'. cann t disrrove it; I think equity will_ relieve _again t the assumpsit upon this prmc1ple, that there was a suggestw falsi on l11s part, and an advantage gamed by 1t. 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 oue party should disclose to the other whatever the former knows and it is the in terest of the latter to know: a total silence, if the dealing in other respects be fair, may be innocent; but if one dis close part ouly o,f, , hat he knows, and concealing the rest, by that mea us gain an unconscienable advanta;;·e, this seems a culpable suppression of the truth, because the other party confided in him, and that confidence was abused by 1101. relating the whole truth. Frivolous as this might appear in a matter of light moment; in this case, I suspect the gai n · to have been enormous, and suppose i\fr. 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 rontroverting· his demand. (Signed,)
See also
References
- ↑ Bennie Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond," (unpublished manuscript, 2009, rev. 2023.) Microsoft Word file. Earlier edition available at: https://digitalarchive.wm.edu/handle/10288/13433. "Published in Williamsburg by Alexander Purdie from 1776 to 1778; John Clarkson and Augustine Davis from 1779 to 1780. Published in Richmond by John Clarkson and Thomas Nicolson in 1780; John Dunlap and James Hayes from 1781 to 1781; James Hayes in 1783 and in 1785; Thomas Nicolson and William Prentis in 1784; John Dixon and John Hunter Holt in 1786; Augustine Davis and Thomas Nicolson in 1787; John Dixon, Augustine Davis, and Thomas Nicolson in 1788; John Dixon in 1788 to 1790; Augustine Davis from 1791 to 1797; Meriwether Jones and John Dixon in 1798; Meriwether Jones from 1799 to 1803; and Samuel Pleasants from 1804 to 1806."
- ↑ Brown, "The Library of George Wythe of Williamsburg and Richmond."
