Wythe's Opinion on Nathan's Case
Wythe explains his opinion on the 1781 case Nathan v. Virginia. The case involved questions of state sovereign immunity, and addressed the ability of an individual who was a citizen of one state to recover a debt owed to him from a different state by suing in his own state's court.[1]
Document text
Page 1
Notwithstanding those, to whom the Bills were drawn immediately payable, could not have been intitled to more than the value received for them; I think that Mr. Nathan, the indorsee, if he were not privy to that transaction, and actually paid cash, or an equivalent, or them at bar, when he took them up, may equitably or well as legaly insist upon the assumpsit: because the Terms of the contract between the drawers and original holders not appearing in the Bills as I suppose it could bind only themselves, and such as had notice of the Terms; -- and the contract between him and the drawer was entered into without any deception which could make it unfair, on her hand.
If he were not privy to the
Page 2
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 bar, if he do not prove that fact, for otherwise the contrary 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 drawer and original holders as he did not mention it to the Executive, altho' what he said of taking them up at bar be true, it seems a disputable question, whether there can be any
Page 3
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 unscionable 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 where I suspect the fain to have been enormous, and suppose Mr. Nathan to have been
Page 4
well appraised of the difference between paper Bills the only Money which inculated in this Commonwealth, and gold and silver. I think if a good foundation for controverting his demand.
- G. Wythe.
- Williamsburg
- 9th March
- 1781
- Mr. Wythe's
- opinion on
- Nathans Case
- ↑ Samuel Briese, "The United States Supreme Court Making Unnecessary Fixes In Franchise Tax Board Of California vs. Hyatt," South Dakota Law Review, 65 (2020): 371-400 at 380.