Dublin Core
Title
Freedmen's Bureau Records 16920454
Description
104, FRAME 454
Louisa C.H. Nov. 12th 1868
Maj: M.S. Hopkins
Dear Sir
Your faver by Edmund rec’d. The judgement he complains of was obtained against him and one John Oliver last April Cir. Court. Process regularly served upon him on the 15th of February – and as he made no appearance and no defense, judgement went against him by default. Under these circumstances it is exceedingly doubtful whether he has any remedy at law, even if he could clearly and unquestionably prove that what he says is true- He cannot appeal, because the amount is too small, and also because there is no error in the record. If he has any remedy at all it is only by the tedious and expensive process of a bill in chancery. The expenses of which if he failed, would be – including his lawyer’s fee & the costs of the defendant’s at least half the amount in controversy-perhaps more- and then the facts he states would be so difficult of proof that the chances are greatly against him. The contract was signed or purports to be signed and sealed by him – and it is witnessed by Miss E.C. Anderson, a lady of unquestioned veracity. I can only account for what Edmund says under the idea that there was a mutual misunderstanding between him and Mr A. The latter thought he agreed to go security and Edmund thought he was only a witness to the contract. It is very probable that Edmund did not / know or/ intend to go security for Oliver. And if he had appeared to answer to the summons, any lawyer for a fee of $5 have gotten him off – supposing what he states to be true. But having in contemplation of law admitted his obligation by not making defence , he would have to prove his case beyond a doubt. It is probable that he could do this
Louisa C.H. Nov. 12th 1868
Maj: M.S. Hopkins
Dear Sir
Your faver by Edmund rec’d. The judgement he complains of was obtained against him and one John Oliver last April Cir. Court. Process regularly served upon him on the 15th of February – and as he made no appearance and no defense, judgement went against him by default. Under these circumstances it is exceedingly doubtful whether he has any remedy at law, even if he could clearly and unquestionably prove that what he says is true- He cannot appeal, because the amount is too small, and also because there is no error in the record. If he has any remedy at all it is only by the tedious and expensive process of a bill in chancery. The expenses of which if he failed, would be – including his lawyer’s fee & the costs of the defendant’s at least half the amount in controversy-perhaps more- and then the facts he states would be so difficult of proof that the chances are greatly against him. The contract was signed or purports to be signed and sealed by him – and it is witnessed by Miss E.C. Anderson, a lady of unquestioned veracity. I can only account for what Edmund says under the idea that there was a mutual misunderstanding between him and Mr A. The latter thought he agreed to go security and Edmund thought he was only a witness to the contract. It is very probable that Edmund did not / know or/ intend to go security for Oliver. And if he had appeared to answer to the summons, any lawyer for a fee of $5 have gotten him off – supposing what he states to be true. But having in contemplation of law admitted his obligation by not making defence , he would have to prove his case beyond a doubt. It is probable that he could do this
Source
Image courtesy of The National Archives Records Administration – Freedmen’s Bureau Records
Publisher
Louisa County Historical Society
Identifier
NARA_16920454