The Lane & Dorman case was decided against us at the last term of the White Circuit Court– As we could not prove much in the way of rents & profits above repairs we demurred to the bill & stood by it when over-ruled.

Now, as I feel more interest in this case than all the business put together to which I ever attended I wish ^you^ to pay particular attention to what I shall say and after reflecting on it, to give me your views in time reach here before the 10^th day of next month with time given for appeal.

This case was sent back from the Supreme Court for amendment of the bill so as to account for the delay— but the amended bill being a new one entirely the whole equity of it will be subject to examination on appeal– It must be borne in mind that the original bill made no mention whatever of the sale by act of the Legislature, tho[though] that question was before the court being brot [brought]to its knowledge by the bill of exceptions. They allude to it in their opinion. Now, certainly it would seem that if they thought that ignorance of the powers of the Legislature [...?] in respect to the authority it assumed of ordering the sale of land & was a good excuse for the long delay in making this application they would have said so. The amended bill simply sets out facts & dates without sharing any extraordinary or other cause for delay of which the Court was not already aware. True it corrects an error into which the Court fell by showing that Lane was not administrator of the estate ^all the time^ from his marriage with the widow to the date of application for sale of the land in the Circuit Court, But how does that

---

affect the great principle of their decision based upon a variety of adjudications in other states. It matters not whether Lane was adm^r[administrator] all the while or not– If not adm^r he could have compelled the application– He does not charge the adm^r (Brown) with refusal or inability to act.2 How therefore is the extraordinary delay accounted for except that Lane did not know the Legislature had no power to pass the act. Tho, not in the bill, all that was before the court when it reversed Scates Judgt.[Judgment] The application to the Legislature was not made for ^five years after L married widow^ But there are grounds of objection to the bill stronger still in my judgment.

1^st Lane has no right to administration. His bill shows that the land was sold to pay a certain debt due him & that he recd[received] more than the amt[amount]– This was an extinguishment of the debt & of the administration. If the land was sold by mistake or illegality it does not alter the fact of payment &c[etc] tho the sale be a nullity. His proper & only remedy would be in assumpsit against the heir.

2^d He does not show that he has paid back the money to the purchasers or is liable to do so, without this the bill is utterly defective & on this point I confidently look for victory

3^d The estate of Robertson owed the Bank, Instead of filing the notes in the Probate office as the case required they ^L Brown & Lane adm^rs^ received them in their own names and thus became liable for the debt. They had no right to do so & in thus voluntarily assuming the debt of Robertson they must bore it– They cannot make the heir pay it back– The bill, gives us this history & defeats itself by ^its own^ showing.

4^th The bill does not show (as it should after such delay,) that d whether the assets were all realized or what portion of them—whether

---

the adm^r used due diligence– Whether Lane has prosecuted him on his bond &–

5^thThe certificate of the Probate Justice (made part of the bill) does not show the numbers of the land belonging to the estate as the law requires, nor does it show to where the debt is coming. It says that on a settlement &c "a balance was of $1008.87 was found due John Lane or the administrators" &cNow the bill prays that the land may be sold to pay a certain debts of that amount due Lane & the certificate says that in the settlement in 1826 [thus?], was found due Lane or adm^r &c– The bill & certificate do not show it but the fact is the above balance was struck to the administrators of whom John Brown was the only one living– Lane was not adm^r at the time and no illusion is made to him in the settlement (in 1826) But this does not come up now– Admitting that the certificate is an "abstract" at all & shows a "debt" it does not show to whom it is due and therefore for this as also for want of numbers of land the demurrer should have been sustained–

There are other points—but these are most important. I am extremely anxious to gain the case out & out. E B Webb, who aided me with his counsel, & I were both of the opinion that the Supreme Court could not possibly gulp down the case as it now stands. Can they decide that ignorance is an excuse for this long delay for it comes to this? or that a man shall recover a debt that he had no right to make and which he is not bound to pay– Please think of this and write at your earliest convenience. Dont do as you did before. This is a great matter with me. I dont want to put Dorman to cost if I can help it but am of

---

opinion that we can gain the case in the Supreme Court. What do you think?

Caldwell thinks (he was trying all the while for it) that he has some advantage in the second hit &c is mistaken– He complied with every order on our run—compliance was authorized by the Court– I have no fears of this but not having acquainted with either the practice of the Supreme Court or the mode of taking up suits I went according to the dictates of common sense. When the Judge finally overruled the demurrer I told him I would stand by the demurrer and that I wanted the fact stated on the record which was done. The judge then heard testimony as to the value of the land &c and gave a decree– To this we excepted. Webb thought we ought to write out our exception & have it signed—but Harlan thought it unnecessary & so did I– If the Supreme Court believe there was no equity in the bill as presented by the demurrer, the decree will be reversed. This is the view I took– Harlan did not decide the demurrer it was Wilson—but the case was not reached at that term for trial & stood over– Please write soon but steady well–3