Alexander hamilton manuscripts

Download 173.83 Kb.
Size173.83 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5

  • Clause 8: Says that Mr. [illegible] answer can’t be true, yet he took these documents only as securities. Says that this error must be only a mistake, for no advantage could result from suppression. Says he was to give up all the securities except [missing].

  • Clause 9: Says that $17,500 was offered to him as additional security, and he would not refuse it.

  • Clause 10: Notes that since there cannot be any proof of fraud, they cannot prevail.

  • Concludes that since he had a debt, he ought to retain his bond for security.

    Notes on a different case, involving Livingston.

    • Clause 1: Allegations of bill materials.

    • Clause 2: [illegible] might give a bond of judgment to cover whomever he pleased.

    • Clause 3: Suggests that he “alarmed his fears and made him give”.

    • Clause 4: Says that if anyone has been defrauded, it is L’Epine [? Illegible].

    • Clause 5: Security should support him in recovering what is due.

    • Clause [note on side, between Clause 5 and Clause 7] Defraud L’Epine “would he have been accusory”, and “if fraud intent would have been [illegible]?”

    • Clause 7: Defendant has not been cunning enough to conceal his frauds.

    • Clause 8: Says it does not seem that his whole property has been absorbed.

    • Clause 9: Notes that it would not have been act of bankruptcy in England.

    • Clause 10: Notes that it is the first time a [illegible] unliquidated is assumed to be a sign of fraud.

    • Clause 11: Notes that he goes to [illegible], who draws a note pro forma, with conditions.

    • Clause 12: Says there was no attempt to set up a bond of bills. Notes that all that can be inferred is that Mr. Hart did not confer with Mr. Hamilton.

    • (No. 76 continued)

    • Clause 11 [this clause is misnumbered in document]. Notes that a note was taken, as well as a policy because property might have been left, and then assignment might amount to nothing.

    • Clause 13: Thinks that giving all these securities showed fairness, instead of trying to cover him for further advances.

    • Clause 14: Thinks that Hart would have cautioned L’Epine against conversation.

    • Clause 15: Notes that money brokers do not keep accounts, so that usury cannot be proven.

    • Clause 16: Asks what the risk was in giving up securities when there was a bond? Says that when he had a bond, he was not bound to prove.

    • Clause 17: Notes another circumstance in favor of Hart’s offer to creditors.

    • Wonders when L’Epine went away?

    • Notes that a security taken for one purpose might be void for another.

    • States that he does not appear insolvent.

    • Notes an attachment as an absconded debtor.

    • Says that mere suspicion will not prevail.

    • Notes advancement of monies in confidence.

    • Notes a request for merchants to take general bills of sale.

    1. HAMILTON, Alexander [Might be written from the New York Supreme Court]

    [date and recipient illegible] 1 page and 1 envelope.

    Microfilm 21: 820-821.

    • Says that he is executing a writ of inquiry of damages in the cause mentioned at top of page [which is illegible] on Friday, April 21st, [possibly 1786]. [The names in the lower left part of page are illegible, but seem to be the attorneys for the defendant.]

    • The envelope is inscribed “John [illegible] vs. John [illegible], New York Supreme Court, Alex. Hamilton, Atty. for Plaintiff”.

    1. HAMILTON, Alexander [place, date, and recipient unknown] 1 page.

    Microfilm 21: 822

    • Says that he learns “with great pleasure the intelligence contained in your private letter”. He hopes that the good sense of their state will give “new triumphs to good men and good measures”. [Name in lower left corner is illegible].

    1. HAMILTON, Alexander,

    Notes on 6 lawsuits, one of which names Hamilton for Plaintiff, and Burr for Defendant. 1 page and 1 cover sheet.

    Microfilm 21: 823-824.

    • The first case is Solomon Simpson vs. Ebenezer Jones. Hamilton is listed for the plaintiff, and Burr for the defendant. The notes are illegible, but the date of October, 1784 is legible.

    • The second case is John Wardrop vs. Alexander Macauley. Hamilton is listed for the plaintiff, and Varick for the defendant. The notes are illegible.

    • The third case lists Mary Franklin, Executrix, and James Mott and Wm. Rickman, executors of Henry Franklin, deceased. Hamilton is listed for the plaintiff and Bey for the defendant. Mentions date of October, 1785.

    • The fourth case lists Amos [illegible, possibly Hayton] vs. John P. Van Kleeck and John Allen, executors of [illegible] Van Kleeck, deceased. Hamilton is listed for the plaintiff and B. Livingston for the defendant. The notes concern monies laid out and expended, and monies lent and advanced.

    • The fifth case lists John Benjamin Paine and John Sickles, executors of Daniel Hull Wickam, deceased, vs. Peter [illegible] and Jacob Van Voorhees. Hamilton is listed for the plaintiff and Lawrence for the defendant. The date of 1785 is mentioned, and the notes concern monies laid out and expended, and monies lent and advanced.

    • The sixth case lists Blair McClanaghan vs. Oliver Templeton and Thomas Stewart. Hamilton is listed for the plaintiff and B. Livingston for the defendant. The date of 1785 is mentioned, and the notes concern monies laid out and expended, and monies lent and advanced.

    • The cover sheet notes “Supreme Court”, “Notes of [illegible] Hamilton”.

    1. HAMILTON, Alexander, Fragment of a document concerning conveyance of land. 2 pp.

    Microfilm 21: 825-826.

    • On the side is written the note “To examine the titles of [illegible] Bayard and Elbert Haring”, and makes reference to Mr. Burr, “who was interested and a good judge”, and that Mr. Burr would not have purchased the land without examining the chain of conveyances.

    • (No. 80 continued)

    • Says that he is not inquiring about how many of those appearing on the schedule are satisfied, as he understands that many of them have been transferred to the Manhattan company.

    • Beneath his signature is a crossed out note that his opinion is that all the links of the title have not been examined by him, so he did not have full “legal evidence of its sufficiency”.

    1. HAMILTON, Alexander, [Place unknown].

    A list, covering the years 1790-1794, 1 page.

    Microfilm 21: 827

    • The list has 2 sections: one entitled “New Method”, and one entitled “Old Method”. The years 1790-1794 are listed, and the number of days is listed for putting in acres of corn, rye, oats, and buckwheat.

    1. HAMILTON, Alexander. Reply to an invitation. 1 page.

    Microfilm 21: 828.

    • Note stating his agreement to execute the command of the President by the time appointed, and notes that he will have the pleasure of waiting upon the President.

    Share with your friends:
  • 1   2   3   4   5

    The database is protected by copyright © 2020
    send message

        Main page