The Court Will Come to Order:
Dandridge vs. Executors of Martha Washington’s Will
By Wendy Kail, Archivist, Tudor Place Historic House and Garden
© Tudor Place Foundation Inc.
The cornerstone of the Federal City at Jones Point was laid on April 15, 1791, but it took
more than ten years for the fledgling city's national government to grow strong enough to assert
its strength. The business of the federal government was conducted in taverns and hotels
throughout the city, the territory of which took time to establish. In 1801 Alexandria, Virginia,
was added to the Federal District and the work of Congress then extended across the river.
Establishing a court system took time, but eventually the Circuit Court for the District of
Columbia was held in Washington and Alexandria. The Judiciary Act of 1789 gave equity
jurisdiction to the circuit court, so-named because it described a tract of
country visited by traveling judges. Its jurisdiction extended over several
counties or districts such as the Federal City and Alexandria, and its terms
were held monthly in the various counties or districts. The judges present at
these courts in the Federal City and Alexandria were William Cranch
(1769-1855), Bruckner Thruston (1763-1845), and James S. Morsell (ND),
who were among President John Adams’ “midnight appointments.” These
three men were so respected that they were even endorsed by Thomas
Jefferson, who openly disapproved other hasty appointments made by
Adams at the close of his term; of these three judges, William Cranch
exerted the strongest presence in the legal community.1
Martha Dandridge Custis
The winding road to justice and the process of law in the early
Washington (1731-1802) left a
nineteenth century is exemplified in an examination of the will of Martha
will that sparked legal disputes.
Dandridge Custis Washington (1731-1802), which was executed on March
4, 1802. The copy of the will submitted to the court, in the hand of her
granddaughter Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis (1799-1852), was drawn up by her attorney Charles
Lee (1758-1815) of Alexandria, Virginia. [Doc. 2] It was witnessed by four persons, including
another granddaughter and namesake, Martha Parke Custis Peter (1777-1854). Martha
Washington nominated and appointed as executors her grandson George Washington Parke
Custis (1781-1857), her nephew Julius Burbridge Dandridge (ND), her nephew Bartholomew
Dandridge (ca. 1772-1802), and her [grand]son-in-law, Thomas Peter (1769-1834), the husband
of her granddaughter Martha Parke Custis Peter.2 The will was recorded in June 1802 at the
Courthouse in Fairfax County by George Washington Parke Custis and Thomas Peter, two of the
named executors. A bill and receipt for recording the will of Martha Washington is held in the
Tudor Place Archive.3
Following Martha Washington’s death, two estate sales were held at Mount Vernon to
raise money to be invested for the education of Martha Washington’s nephews Bartholomew D.
Henley (1788-decessit sine prole [died without issue]), Samuel Henley (1792-1825), and her
grandnephew John Dandridge (1796-1836).
1
Mrs. Washington’s nephew, Bartholomew D. Henley,
was born March 14, 1788. He was the son of her sister,
Elizabeth Dandridge Aylett Henley (1749-ca.1800), and
Leonard Henley (d. 1798) of James City County, Virginia. He
attended the College of William and Mary in 1806. Henley
entered the United States Navy but little is recorded of his
career; his death date is unknown. Samuel Henley, his brother,
was born on February 25, 1792. Like his brother before him, he
entered the navy as a midshipman in 1809. He was
commissioned a Lieutenant in July 1813; he died at Vera Cruz,
Mexico, on July 14, 1825.4
John Dandridge’s father, John Dandridge (1758 –
1799), was the eldest son of Martha Washington’s brother
Bartholomew Dandridge (1737-1785) and Mary Burbridge
Dandridge (d. 1802). He attended the College of William and
Mary in 1778. He studied law and practiced in New Kent
County, Virginia. He married Rebecca Jones Minge of Charles
City County, moved to Brandon, Virginia, in 1797, and died
there two years later.5 Their son and grandnephew of Martha
Washington, John Dandridge, was born in 1796. After the death Martha Washington’s grandson George Washington
of his father and presumably after the death of his mother, John Parke Custis (1781-1857) an executor.
became the ward of Burwell Bassett, Jr., of New Kent County,
Virginia. Burwell Bassett, Jr., was the son of George Washington’s close friend Burwell Bassett
whose wife was Martha Washington’s sister, Anna Maria Dandridge. As did his father before
him, John Dandridge attended the College of William and Mary 1811-1812, 1813, 1814-1815,
and chose law as his profession. His death date is 1836.6
The first sale for their benefit was open to relatives of Mrs. Washington; a friend who
attended the second sale was disappointed to find that the relatives had purchased the cream of
the crop.7 Thomas and Martha Peter bought many objects at the first sale, some of which remain
today at Tudor Place; two of Thomas Peter’s brothers, David Peter and Robert Peter, Jr., made
more modest purchases. As an executor, Thomas Peter kept a record of the sale.8
Despite the honor of being named executors, neither George Washington Parke Custis
nor Thomas Peter could have realized at the time that they had been handed a double-edged
sword. Questions about the will arose almost immediately. Thomas Peter and George
Washington Parke Custis wrote to Mrs. Washington’s lawyer, Charles Lee, with questions about
the estate. Charles Lee was born in 1758 in Leesylvania, Prince William County, Virginia, the
second son of Henry and Lucy Grymes Lee. He graduated from the College of New Jersey
[Princeton] in 1778 and studied law under Jared Ingersoll in Philadelphia. He served in the
United States Navy from 1777-1789, and was a delegate to the Continental Congress and the
Virginia Assembly. A strong defender of Washington’s policies, Washington appointed him
Attorney General in 1795, a position he maintained through 1801 in the administration of John
Adams. He was assigned the case of Marbury vs. Madison, and was lawyer for the defense of
Aaron Burr for treachery. He remained a staunch Federalist all his life, and practiced law in
Washington and in Alexandria, Virginia. He died in 1815.9
Some of George Washington Parke Custis’ and Thomas Peter’s questions to Charles Lee
dealt with the will of George Washington and its direct influence on the will of his wife. Custis
2
and Peter asked if the rent of the lands and the interest from them that were devised to Mrs.
Washington by George Washington during her life should be assigned to the executors of the
General or the executors of Mrs. Washington, and, if to Mrs. Washington, what proportion
belonged to the executors to distribute? Another point in doubt was if the profit from Mrs.
Washington’s sale of stock and cattle belonged to the executors of the General or the executors
of Mrs. Washington. Since the executors were responsible for
distributing money to the legatees under Martha Washington’s will,
these questions were important ones to all concerned: “We agree to
abide by and perform the award and decision of Charles Simms and
Charles Lee of Alexandria on all or any of the above questions, as far as
we are respectively concerned in the subjects of them individually, or in
our capacity of executors.”10
On July 17, 1802, Charles Simms (1755-1819), a lawyer in
Alexandria, sent to Thomas Peter his legal opinion, along with those of
his colleagues Charles Lee and Thomas Swann (ND), in answer to
questions raised by Peter and Custis, noting, “our charge is five dollars
each for each opinion given by us.”11 A bill from Charles Lee to the
executors of Martha Washington, deceased, read: $20 for the draft of
Mrs. Washington’s last will; $10 for an opinion on “sundry questions”
directed to Mr. T. Peter; and $20 for “opinions among questions
proposed by Mr. Custis.” A brief addendum warned, “The legal fees on
Attorney Charles Lee (1758-1815), who
wrote the will, warned executor Thos. Peter the several questions would exceed the sum charged.” A receipt of
January 31, 1803, noted that Charles Lee received $50 in payment from
about mounting fees. His bill came to $50.
Thomas Peter.12
One item of the will would prove particularly troublesome. It was Martha Washington’s
desire that the residue of her estate,
. . . not herein specifically devised or bequeathed shall be sold by the Executors . . . for
ready money . . . and that the proceeds thereof together with all the Money of the House
and the debts due me . . . shall be Invested by my Executors in Eight p. Cent stock of the
funds of the United States . . . and it is my desire that the Interest thereof shall be applied
to the proper Education of Bartholomew Henley and Samuel Henley the two youngest
sons of my Sister Henley and also to the Education of John Dandridge, son of my
deceased Nephew John Dandridge so that they may be severally fitted and accomplished
in some useful trade or to reach the age of Twenty-one years, I give and bequeath one
Hundred Pounds to set him up in trade.13
Mrs. Washington further stated that any interest from the money should the two Henley boys and
Dandridge not reach the age of 21, be divided among the following: the daughter of her niece
Anna Maria Washington; the son of her nephew John Dandridge; and remaining great
grandchildren, including John Dandridge, Anna Maria Washington, Mary Custis, Eliza Law,
Frances Lewis, Lorenzo Lewis, Agnes Lewis, Angela Lewis, George Washington Peter, John
Parke Custis Peter, Columbia Washington Peter, America Pinckney Peter, and Britannia
Wellington Peter.14
In a foreshadowing of what was to come, trouble ensued almost immediately. By 1804
the phrase “may be severally fitted and accomplished in some useful trade,” was open to
3
interpretation: what was a useful trade? The cost of education would depend on who was
educated, what the education consisted of, and where the education took place. Burwell Bassett,
Jr., (1764-1841), stood guardian to the three young men Martha Washington had singled out for
aid.15 He and Thomas Peter foresaw trouble in the vague terms “proper education” and “useful
trade.” They sought to define these terms; in a letter of April 10, 1804 Charles Lee stated:
To Thomas Peter & Burwell Bassett Esqrs./ Alexandria 10 April 1804
Gentlemen:
In compliance with your request I have considered the clause in Mrs. Washington’s will
relative to the education of Bartholomew Henley & Samuel Henley her nephews & John
Dandridge and will express the opinion which I entertain of it meaning in regard to the
points on which you differ.
The interest of the eight per cent stock directed to be assigned by her executors is made a
fund for the proper education of those three boys so that they may be severally completed
in some useful trade. The fund is clearly designated, and the use of the fund must be
appropriated with prudence to fulfill the object of the testatrix. What is the object and
intention when she uses the terms “so that they be generally fitted & accomplished in
some useful trade”? I answer she intended to exclude an education proper for the liberal
arts or learned profession. A classic education was not meant, which is the most
expensive of any, and only proper for those who are to be occupied in the learned
professions such as divinity, law, & physics, or in the liberal art & include sculpture,
painting, drawing, & music, etc.
The testatrix did not mean any formal education such as the fund was adequate to pay for,
but an education proper & suited to that useful trade which was to be followed during
life. The term “education” is more extensive than mere “tuition” and I think a part of the
fund if necessary to board, washing, apparel, medicine, ought to be co-applied. The
tuition ought to comprehend reading, writing, arithmetic and the ordinary branches of
mathematics, so confined in the mode of education. If it be requisite to expend the whole
fund in their education it is the legacy for setting each up in his trade at a suitable age, the
whole fund may be carefully so expended. The choice of the trade ought to be made by
the guardian of each, who should take into view the mental & bodily faculties of each as
well as he can discern them and such other circumstances as shall furnish the best
grounded hopes of his future welfare in society.
Charles Lee [Document 4]16
It was this opinion of Charles Lee that determined the actions of executors Thomas Peter and
George Washington Parke Custis. The two Henley brothers entered the United States Navy, but
John Dandridge decided to study law. Therefore the executors paid for the education of the
Henleys but not John Dandridge, following Charles Lee’s opinion that the law was not a useful
trade. John Dandridge took the two executors to task. Thus began a long and winding road to
justice which revealed the process of law in the early nineteenth century, the personalities of the
players involved in the process, and the customs of the country in which they lived. The
following information is gathered from the records of this case held today in The Library of
Virginia, Richmond, Virginia.17 These documents did not appear in order but were assembled by
4
this author chronologically for study purposes; several documents were undated and many of the
documents were recorders notes. It was also apparent that the case records were incomplete.
Chancery Court of Alexandria: Dandridge vs. Executors of Martha Washington
Because this was a case in equity, the case was filed in the federal circuit court, where it was
referred to a commissioner or commissioners in chancery, who reported to the court facts upon
which the case rested. The commissioners addressed in court documents as “Master
Commissioner,” often abbreviated in writing as “M.C.," were court-appointed officials who
helped make rulings in equity, and occasionally had the authority to make rulings themselves. As
early as May 1818 Master Commissioner [M.C.] Alexander Moore (ND) was ordered by the
Chancery Court of Alexandria to ascertain what would have been a competent sum for the
education of the complainant, John Dandridge. [Doc. 5]. He was also ordered to ascertain the
annual expense of educating Bartholomew D. Henley and Samuel Henley to fit them for a trade.
Richard H. Cocke (ND) stood in as administrator of the will of Bartholomew D. Henley, who
was deceased when these negotiations began.
However, the case did not legally begin until August 3, 1820, when George Washington
Parke Custis and Thomas Peter were summoned to the Circuit Court of the District of Columbia,
County of Alexandria, to answer a bill petitioned by John Dandridge. Tench Ringgold (17761844), United States Marshal, noted that George Washington Parke Custis could not be located
to accept this summons; Custis’ absences continued throughout the case and threw more and
more responsibility on the shoulders of his brother-in-law, Thomas Peter. [Doc. 7]
The youngest son of John Parke Custis (1754-1781) and Eleanor Calvert (ca. 1757/81811), George Washington Parke Custis was born in 1781 at Mount Airy, Maryland, the home of
his maternal grandfather, Benedict Calvert. He was a few months old when his father died of
camp fever at Yorktown. When his mother remarried Dr. David Stuart (1753-1814), he was
adopted by his grandparents, Martha and George Washington. His first tutor was Gideon Snow
and then Tobias Lear. Later he was a student at the Alexandria Academy; his further schooling
career was checkered. In 1802-03 he built his home, Arlington, and married Mary Lee Fitzhugh
(1738-1853) in 1804. Their only daughter, Mary Anna Randolph Custis (1808-1873), married
Robert E. Lee (1807-1870) in 1831. He was an industrious painter, a gentleman farmer, and an
active disciple of George Washington all his life. But as one author has noted, “George
Washington Parke Custis was possessed of more than usual abilities, but he was always
handicapped with habitual indolence.”18
Thomas Peter (1769-1834) was born in 1769, the oldest son of Robert Peter (1726-1806)
and Elizabeth Scott Peter (1744-1821). He inherited his father’s sharp business sense as a
merchant and land speculator, and upon his father’s death received a sizable land and slave
inheritance from his father’s estate. Thomas Peter married Martha Parke Custis (1777-1854),
one of the four grandchildren of Martha Washington, on January 6, 1795, the 35th anniversary of
George and Martha Washington’s wedding. The ceremony took place at Hope Park, the Fairfax
County, Virginia, estate of the bride’s mother, Eleanor Calvert Custis Stuart and stepfather, Dr.
David Stuart (1753-1814), one of three commissioners of the new Federal City and close friend
of George Washington. After their marriage Thomas and Martha Custis Peter resided in a house
built by Robert Peter on Wapping [K] Street. George Washington, Martha Custis Peter’s stepgrandfather, was often a guest of the Peters, and he spent his last night in the Federal City at this
home. In 1805 Thomas and Martha Custis Peter purchased 8.5 acres in Georgetown Heights
from Francis Lowndes of Bladensburg, Maryland. The purchase was undertaken with an $8,000
5
legacy that Martha Custis Peter received from George Washington. The Peters asked the selftaught architect Dr. William Thornton (1759-1828), architect of the first U.S. Capitol, to design
their home overlooking the Potomac. They lived at Tudor Place with their growing family but
also resided periodically at their farm, Oakland, in Seneca, Maryland. In 1802 Thomas Peter was
one of twelve citizens elected to the first City Council of Washington. From 1801 until his death
in 1834, he served seven terms as a Justice of the Peace for the County of Washington in
Maryland; as a Justice of the Peace he was commissioned to represent Georgetown in the Levy
Court.19 Thomas Peter was a director of the Bank of Columbia and a vestryman of St. John’s
Protestant Episcopal Church in Georgetown; along with many other citizens of the day, he
enjoyed horse racing as a favorite hobby.
Attempts to have George Washington Parke Custis and Thomas Peter appear in court
continued until September 1821. [Doc. 7] On November 29, 1821, the court again demanded
M.C. Moore to ascertain when John Dandridge became 21, and to produce what would have
been a competent sum for his education; on May 19, 1823, the court ordered George Washington
Parke Custis and Thomas Peter to determine how much money was distributed to the remaining
legatees. [Doc. 8]
Time passed and the May Term of Court of 1824 progressed unhurried. M.C. Moore
must have produced his estimate for the cost of educating Dandridge, for George Washington
Parke Custis and Thomas Peter were ordered to show “cause” as to why Moore’s estimate should
not be accepted by the Court. [Doc. 9] Thomas Peter was absent at the delivery of his notice to
show cause, but his wife, Martha Peter, accepted the summons for her husband on November 8,
1824; for some unknown reason Custis did not receive the summons to appear and the task of
refuting Dandridge’s claim fell to Peter, who would take more and more and eventually all of the
responsibility for defense of the executors’ actions [Doc. 10].
Thomas Peter was occupied with other more serious matters, for the record shows that he
took much time to prepare his statement, and that it was not until the opening of the April 1825
Term that he was granted permission to appear in court and file an answer, which he did on the
13th. of that month. [Doc. 12] In the formal statement to the judges of the Circuit Court of the
District of Columbia for the County of Alexandria, he did not mince words: Dandridge’s claim
was unjust, illegal, and opposed by the other legatees of the will. He stated further that John
Dandridge was paid 100 pounds when he became 21 and that large sums were paid to Burwell
Bassett, Jr., for the education of Bartholomew and Samuel Henley and John Dandridge. The
executors were authorized to spend money only for a “useful trade,” a position taken by advice
of Charles Lee in 1804 defining education to Burwell Bassett, Jr., and Thomas Peter. [Doc. 4,
Doc. 13] He claimed that all the legatees should be required to be named parties to the lawsuit as
the amount of their payments from the estate would be reduced considerably if Dandridge’s
claim was approved. The court adjourned.
Time passed again, and John Dandridge grew discouraged. It is not known if he no longer
saw any possibility of winning his suit, if he was overburdened with debt, if health problems
intervened, or if he could not afford to spend more time on what he perceived a hopeless
situation. Whatever the cause, in a letter dated January 24th, 1826, John Dandridge wrote from
Richmond to his lawyer, Benjamin Lincoln Lear (1791-1832), that his suit would not be
continued until April,
. . . to afford the Executors an opportunity to obtain testimony. This I confess seems to
be a great indulgence to parties who have manifested already so great a disposition to
6
procrastinate the final decision of the cause. I have however had experience enough to
know that he who is compelled to enter Chancery Court in order to obtain his rights, must
make up his mind to bear with patience the “Laws delay” (sic). [Doc. 14]20
John Dandridge then authorized Benjamin Lincoln Lear by letter to settle
his claim out of court, and gave him the authority to act for him, promising
to confirm Lear’s “actions and doings in the matter.” This letter to Lear in
the Tudor Place Archive and a receipt from Thomas Peter for $500 “on
account of the legacy left to Mr. John Dandridge by Mrs. Washington &
which sum I promise to pay to the said John Dandridge without delay,”
signed by Lear suggests that Peter was open for negotiations, and the tide
was turning in Dandridge’s favor.21 [Doc. 14]
John Dandridge’s attorney, Benjamin Lincoln Lear, was the son of
Tobias Lear (1762-1816) and Mary Long Lear (d.1793). Tobias Lear, born
in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, graduated from Harvard College with
honors in 1783. Upon recommendation to George Washington by General
Benjamin Lincoln, he was appointed Washington’s amanuensis
[secretary], and soon became the tutor of the Washingtons’ adopted
Attorney Benjamin Lincoln Lear took the
dispute over Martha Washington’s will to grandchildren Eleanor Parke and George Washington Parke Custis. After
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Washington became president in 1789, Lear was entrusted with affairs of
state and enjoyed Washington’s complete confidence. Tobias Lear traveled
abroad in 1793, but returned to the United States and was elected president of the Potomac River
Company in 1795. Washington appointed him his military secretary when war with France
threatened in 1798. Thomas Jefferson made him consul-general for Santo Domingo in 1803 and
then for Algiers from 1804-1811. There Lear negotiated the peace treaty with Tripoli of which
the United States government approved, but the American people thought unworthy. Lear was
employed as an accountant with the war department until the time of his death in the Federal
City in 1816.22
Tobias Lear’s wife, Mary Long Lear, was also a native of Portsmouth. Their only child,
Benjamin Lincoln Lear, was born in the President’s house in Philadelphia on March 11, 1791,
and the boy was a great favorite of the Washingtons. George Washington was his godfather.
After the death of Mary Lear in 1793, the child was taken by his grandmother, Mary Stillson
Lear, to Portsmouth, where he lived while his father traveled abroad extensively. Martha
Washington wrote to Mary Stillson Lear,
. . . it gives me real pleasure to hear from you – and my dear little Lincoln. I often think
of the dear child and wish the distance was not as great between us – if it was not I should
have asked you to let him come to see me – but I know how inconvenient it would be for
a child his age to be carried so long a journey . . . my children often talk of dear little
Lincoln and wish they had him with them – if I live to see Mr (sic) Lear bring the child
into this part of the world – tho I love him and wish to see him,- I shall feel a good deal
of anxiety for the babe if it is taken from you as I suppose Mr (sic) Lear as a fond father
will wish to have his child with him.23
7
Martha Washington was so fond of Benjamin Lincoln Lear that she later mentioned him in her
will. She bequeathed him 100 pounds to be invested in United States stock “. . . to stand in his
Name as his property which investment my Executors are to cause to be made.”24
Benjamin Lincoln Lear became an eminent lawyer and a member of the bar of the
District of Columbia. He was well known for his amiable manner, his honor, and particularly his
benevolence, which “. . . formed a character seldom surpassed, and that placed him high in the
confidence of his fellow citizens.” He was the attorney of the Bank of the United States. Lear
was married twice. His first wife was Maria Morris (ND); his second wife was Louisa Sophia
Bumford (1813-1864), whose family owned the estate Kalorama in the Federal City. He died of
cholera in 1832; his only child, a daughter, was born shortly after his death.25
John Dandridge’s fear that the case would continue to be delayed was justified. In April
1826 the court in session ordered a deposition of Burwell Bassett, Jr., regarding his guardianship
of Bartholomew and Samuel Henley and John Dandridge. [Doc. 16] The deposition was
admitted as evidence “legal and competent” that same month. [Doc. 15] Thomas Peter paid $10
to Robert P. Dunlop (1795-1869) for taking this deposition.26 [Doc. 17] More than a year later,
on April 19, 1827, the Court of the City of Alexandria cited the complaint brought on August 3,
1820, by John Dandridge against George Washington Parke Custis and Thomas Peter, and
dismissed the case for want of proper parties, the absence of the thirteen other legatees noted in
Martha Washington’s will proposed by Thomas Peter, citing the defendant’s evidence, and the
deposition of Burwell Bassett, Jr. [Doc. 16]
Due to the court’s decision a discouraged John Dandridge assigned his lawyer, Benjamin
Lincoln Lear, his entire claim and case against the estate of Martha Washington to eliminate his
debt of $273 and any other debts he might have incurred; Lear wrote to Edmund J. Lee, Clerk of
the Court of Alexandria, to make sure this assignment to him would not delay proceedings
further.27 [Docs. 19, 20] Benjamin Lincoln Lear, appropriately named for the Revolutionary War
hero and friend of General Washington, Benjamin Lincoln, decided to force the issue.28 He took
the matter, which was now his sole responsibility, to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of the United States: Dandridge, etc., vs. Executors of Martha Washington
Benjamin Lincoln Lear knew that Supreme Court Chief
Justice John Marshall was a fair and honorable judge, a force to be
reckoned with, and no friend of procrastination. John Marshall was
born in 1755 in Germantown, Fauquier County, Virginia. He was
schooled in domestic education and tutored in classical studies by a
clergyman from Scotland. He attended the classical academy of the
Messrs. [Rev. Archibald] Campbell in Westmoreland County,
Virginia, the same school his father and George Washington had
attended. One of his classmates was James Monroe. He began to
study law at age eighteen, but heard the stirrings of revolution. He
joined an independent body of volunteers and trained a company of
militia. In the summer of 1775 a regiment of minutemen was raised
in Fauquier County; his father Thomas Marshall (1730-1802) was
appointed major and John Marshall was appointed a lieutenant of
the regiment. Reportedly the men wore green hunting shirts
emblazoned with the motto “Liberty or Death!” and their company
8
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall:
"no friend of procrastination."
banner featured a coiled rattlesnake inscribed with the warning “Don’t Tread on Me!” They were
armed with rifles, knives, and tomahawks.
Eventually John Marshall’s company was reorganized, attached to the 11th regiment of
Virginia troops, and sent to New Jersey to join George Washington. Marshall was promoted to
captain in 1799 and his company fought bravely at the Battle of Brandywine. Marshall spent
winter quarters at Valley Forge, and saw action at Monmouth, Stony Point, and Paulus Hook.
His sense of fairness and discretion allowed him to settle disputes among the officers, and he
acted as deputy judge-advocate; these traits and occupation were observed by Washington, with
whom he formed a strong attachment. Detained in Richmond during the winter of 1779-1780, he
attended lectures at the College of William and Mary by George Wythe, whose pupils included
two presidents of the United States and one state senator.29 In 1780 he received his license to
practice law, but when Virginia was invaded by the British he rejoined the army under Baron
von Steuben.
He resigned his commission in 1781 and returned to law. Marshall rose quickly to high
distinction at the bar. In 1782 he was elected to the House of Burgesses and became a member of
the state executive council. Upon his marriage in 1783 he took up permanent residence in
Richmond. In 1787 he was elected to represent Henrico County, which included Richmond.
Elected to the state convention to ratify the new United States constitution, he countered the
questions of opponent Patrick Henry so eloquently that it was later agreed that Virginia’s
acceptance of the constitution was due to him and James Madison.
In 1795 Washington offered him the post of attorney general, but he declined the honor;
in 1796 Washington asked him to succeed James Monroe as an envoy to France, where trouble
threatened, but Marshall again declined the offer. In June 1797 he accepted a request from John
Adams to join Charles Pinckney and Elbridge Gerry as envoys to France. Despite their joint
attempts, they could not establish diplomatic relations with the French Republic. Marshall
prepared a paper for the French people which set forth the American views with precision and
force, and expressed his country’s desire to maintain friendly relations with France. However,
disorder prevailed and Pinckney and Marshall were expelled from France. Marshall returned to
the United States in June 1798 where he was received with honor and respect for his efforts. In
1799 he served a single session in Congress.
In 1800 he was appointed Secretary of State under John Adams. He was confirmed
January 20, 1801, as Chief Justice while still holding the office of Secretary of State. His two
most famous cases were Marbury vs. Madison in 1803 in which Marshall established a precedent
for the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of congressional legislation and act as
the final authority on the meaning of the Constitution, and in 1807 he presided at the state trial of
Aaron Burr for treason and misdemeanor. From 1804-1807 at the request of the Washington
family, he published five volumes of the life of Washington in which he defended George
Washington’s administration; he remained a staunch Federalist all his life. In 1829 he was a
delegate to revise the Virginia state constitution. He spent the last years of his life on the bench
of the Supreme Court, and died in 1835. This was the man the executors of Martha Washington’s
will were to face!30
In the circuit court, the appellant filed his bill against George Washington Parke Custis
and Thomas Peter, as executors of Mrs. Martha Washington, late of Mount Vernon; claiming the
payment of a sum of money due him, under the bequests in the will of the testatrix, for the
expenses of his education; and also for a distributive share of the residuary estate of the
deceased, in the hands of the executors, acting as trustees under the will. 31
9
This case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States in the January 1829
Term. The case was argued for the appellant, John Dandridge, by Thomas Swann and Benjamin
Lincoln Lear, and for the appellees, Thomas Peter and George Washington Parke Custis, by
Robert J. Taylor (ND).32
Swann and Lear argued that the circuit court erred in decreeing that the case be dismissed
due to the absence of the legatees named in Martha Washington’s will and asked the Supreme
Court to correct this decree, and that the executors of Martha Washington’s will should be
directed to pay by the terms of the will, the funds for the appellant’s education. Swann and Lear
admitted that the general rule held that “all who are interested in the decree shall be made parties
to the proceedings,” but that in this case the executors represented all the legatees.33
Swann and Lear contested further:
A sound construction of the will does not confine the education of those who were the
objects of the bequest to preparation for a ‘trade.’ The appellant had obtained an
education for the law, which he afterwards studied, and by no interpretation could it be
claimed to restrict the expenses of his instruction to the acquisition of such knowledge as
was necessary for a mechanic art. The words of the will are to receive a liberal
construction, and to be so applied as will fully execute the generous purposes of the
testatrix. ‘Trade’ is ‘business’ and not a ‘manual’ or ‘mechanic’ employment. To the
profitable use of every business, knowledge is necessary; and in the United States, men
are called to the highest stations from every occupation. To limit the education of the
appellant only to a preparation for a mechanical employment, was contrary to those
principles which should have been applied, taking into consideration the situation and
relations of the testatrix, and of the appellant. 34
Therefore the appellant, John Dandridge, was entitled to the funds he claims: “Although it was
not expended in his education, it was nevertheless his.”35
Taylor, however, pleaded the case for Thomas Peter and George Washington Parke
Custis. The nephews were to be educated for a trade, not a profession. If the costs of these
educations were less than the dividends on the stock, the residuary fund would be increased and
therefore the legatees should be present to protect their own interests. The rule stated that when
an interest can be shown to be in a party not before the court, that party must be brought in
unless circumstances arise as an exception to this rule.36 The party in this case would be all the
legatees of Martha Washington.
Whereupon Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the Court. He first reviewed
the facts of the case, and then stated:
The distinction between a profession and a trade is well understood; and they are seldom,
if ever, confounded with each other in ordinary language. If the testatrix had
contemplated what in the common intercourse of society is denominated a profession, she
would scarcely have used a term which is generally received as denoting one of the
mechanical arts. But we do not think the bequest is confined to the expense of acquiring
the trade, so as to be enabled to exercise it in the common way. Such does not appear to
have been the intent of the testatrix. Her bounty is extended to the proper education of
three relatives, so that they may be severally fitted and accomplished in some useful
trade. Their education is a primary object, as well as their acquisition of the trade; and
10
when we consider the situation and character of the parties, and the language of the will,
we cannot doubt that the testatrix intended such an education as would fit her relatives to
hold a distinguished place in that line of life in which she designed them to move. . . 37
Marshall also found support for his decision in the fact that Martha Washington left each of these
nephews 100 pounds, as well as the money to pay for their education, indicative of her
determination that their future was off to a solid start:
In this case the testatrix does not appear to have intended a pecuniary donation to the
parties in the particular bequest under consideration. Her intention in that respect was
effected (sic) by the gifts of 100 pounds to each, to set him up in his trade. This bequest
seems to have been made not with a view of adding to their private fortunes, but with a
view to their education and preparation for that particular business which they were
afterwards to pursue. . . 38
Regarding Taylor’s argument that all the legatees of the will should have been present at the
proceedings, Marshall stated, “In a suit for the distribution of this fund we do not think the
residuary legatees necessary parties. They have undoubtedly an interest in reducing the sum to be
allowed out of it to the complainant, but they have the same interest in reducing every demand
on the estate . . . the executors represent the residuary legatees, and guard their interests.”39
Thus on February 16, 1829, Chief Justice John Marshall reversed the circuit court’s
dismissal of John Dandridge’s complaint, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for
further proceedings. Chief Justice Marshall disagreed with the dismissal for want of proper
parties: the presence of the legatees, whose payments would be diminished if Dandridge received
the money he asked for, was not required. Marshall warned further that the emphasis placed on
Martha Washington’s definition of a “trade” should be broadly and not narrowly construed.
[Doc. 21] He thereby reversed not only the decision of the circuit court, but overturned the
opinion of Charles Lee to Thomas Peter and George Washington Parke Custis of 1804 which
differentiated trade from profession. And so the executors’ victory was short lived.
The April Term of the circuit court began its session. Upon the remanding of the case,
M.C. Colin Auld (ND) was commissioned to determine the expense of educating John
Dandridge, the same assignment that M.C. Moore had received eleven years earlier in May
1818! [Docs. 23, 5] On May 8, 1829, Thomas Peter was notified that M.C. Moore would file his
report with the Clerk of the Court on Saturday, May 9, at which three calculations would be
proposed on the cost of educating the Henleys and Dandridge: M.C. Auld’s report; the opinion of
an expert witness selected by the executors; and the opinion of an expert witness selected by
Benjamin Lincoln Lear, the lawyer for John Dandridge’s case. [Docs. 25, 26]
Evidently this meeting did not take place; the executors were preoccupied with other
matters, for Thomas Peter was again notified to appear in court on June 29. But on June 27 Peter
wrote to M.C. Auld that unfortunately he would not be able to appear: “I was taken with a fit of
Gout and Bilous fever the day after I last saw you in Alexa. (sic) & by being salivated am just
getting a little Better But will not be able to travel to Alexa. (sic) on the 29th as notified –and if
am able will be obliged to attend pressing business. . .” [Doc. 28]
What pressing business matter occupied Peter is not known. But Anna Maria Brodeau
Thornton (1775?-1865), an intimate friend of the Peter family, noted in her diary on June 15,
1829, that she went to Tudor Place and found Mr. Peter very ill. In fact it was not until
11
September 27, 1829, that she observed that Thomas Peter looked somewhat improved in health.
Later in the year she found again that he looked very poorly.40 Peter suffered continually from
severe gout, a periodical disease of arthritis attended with great pain; bilous fever has been
described as an angry swelling in which fluid is collected in the gall-bladder.41
M.C. Auld officially observed that Thomas Peter did not attend the June 29th meeting due
to health and weather conditions, and set another date for the meeting on July 27. He added that
he would close his report on the 27th of July, and that if no attendance was given, he would
proceed exparte [from or on one side only, as in a controversy; in the interest of one party] in
conformity to the rule laid down by the Supreme Court. [Docs. 31, 32]
But upon second thought and seemingly against all odds, M.C. Auld now sent a series of
notices that he would close his report on November 7. In August Thomas Peter’s expert witness,
J. Holbrook (ND), submitted his opinion on the cost of tuition for a youth to be prepared for a
“useful trade” fifteen years earlier [Doc 35]: according to Holbrook, between the ages of eight
and twelve years, tuition costs would have ranged from $15 to $18 per year, and between the age
of twelve and fifteen years, tuition costs would have ranged from $20 to $25 dollars per year. In
November John Dandridge’s expert, Jacob Hoffman (ND), gave his opinion on the cost of
educating John Dandridge:
In the District of Country in which these Youths were to be educated [in the County
adjacent to Williamsburg, Virginia], to obtain a plain English education, would one
hundred and twenty dollars per year, for board and Education from Seven to Eleven
Years of Age and eighty Dollars for Cloathing (sic)./From eleven to Sixteen I am of
Opinion, the Same Sum would be Sufficient./From Six to twenty one they Should be
taught Chemistry and Mathematics, to qualify them for tradesmen, the expense of these
five years I should be, or am of Opinion would need one hundred and forty Dollars
Yearly, in these five Years a trade may be acquired, and One hundred Dollars Yearly to
Clothe Them. [Doc. 37]
Hoffmann added: “In the District of County within Alluded to, any Education more than a plain
English [education], can not (sic) easily be Obtained except at Williamsburg, Richmond,
Petersburg or Norfolk.”42 [Doc. 37]
In a surprise move, however, M.C. Auld rejected the opinion of Dandridge’s expert as too
high and the opinion of Peter’s expert as too low. He requested the court to fix the correct
amount. He defined the term “Education’ as used in the will:
. . . as comprising bringing up, forming, the manner, instructing in moral and religious
duty, and in reading, writing, arithmetic, bookkeeping, and the lower branches of the
Mathematics, if the trade of a Carpenter, Mason, or Bricklayer, drawing and
architecture,-- if of a Smith, Brewer or Tanner a knowledge of Chemistry, Rock,
instruments, and tools would also be necessary, and probably some gratuity would be
requisite to induce the Master or foreman to pay more than ordinary attention, so that the
apprentice might be “fitted and accomplished in the trade.” [Doc.38]
At last the exasperated court took the matter into its own hands, and M. C. Moore
calculated the “value” of the education of the three young men. He placed $2,500 on the
education of Bartholomew D. Henley; $1,500 on the education of Samuel Henley; and $3,311.65
12
on the value of the education of John Dandridge. The total value of all three educations was
$7,311.45. Moore noted further that $166.66 should be deducted from the total education of John
Dandridge, because it had already been paid to Burwell Bassett, Jr. This left a balance of
$3,144.78, the interest of which from November 21, 1817, the date Dandridge became 21 years
of age, should be calculated by the court. In addition M.C. Moore found that upon reaching the
age of 21, Dandridge was also due $560.17 ½, plus interest; this figure representing 1/13th of
$7,282.30, the residuary fund from the estate in the hands of the defendant Thomas Peter. Thus
in total John Dandridge was due $3,704.96, plus interest. [Doc. 39]
In the November Term 1829 the court acknowledged it had received the report of M.C.
Moore, and that Thomas Peter “attended the said commissioner in the settlement of the account .
. .” The court ordered Peter to show cause why this report should not be confirmed “. . . and why
the court should not proceed to decree the payment of the sum which the court may adjudge to be
due the complainant against the said Peter or against the defendant Custis.” [Doc. 40]
But now, unhappy with all three of these calculations, M.C. Auld decided himself to
calculate the costs of educating both Henleys and Dandridge at the ages of 16 and 21. He
determined the costs were: John Dandridge $3,077.60 by age 21; Samuel Henley’s estate
$2,031.60 by age 21; Bartholomew D. Henley’s estate $987.60 by age 21. [Doc. 41] And it was
this report that the court ultimately accepted. In an undated draft decree overruling all exceptions
presented by Thomas Peter, the court instructed the defendants to pay John Dandridge the figure
stated in M.C. Auld’s report of $3,077.60 at age 21, with interest starting from November 21,
1817, when Dandridge became of age. [Doc. 42]
On July 30, 1830, almost twelve years to the day that this lawsuit officially began,
Benjamin Lincoln Lear wrote to Edmund J. Lee, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Alexandria, stating
that he, John Dandridge, and Thomas Peter had entered into settlement of the money owed to
Lear for handling Dandridge’s case, as Dandridge had assigned the rights of the case to Lear on
August 5, 1828. In a stunning move Lear stated, “. . . the whole amount has been paid Mr.
Dandridge, after deducting the debts and claims yet to be paid me by Mr. Peter.” After his case
was lost in circuit court, Dandridge had assigned his lawsuit to Lear in return for forgiveness of
an existing debt of $273 and any other debts to Lear that he might incur. Lear assumed the risk
that the Supreme Court might not reverse the lower court’s ruling. But when the Supreme Court
did overrule the lower court, Lear returned to Dandridge the sum he had previously given away.
Therefore Lear essentially received only the money due for Dandridge’s prior indebtedness and
presumably his legal fee for representing Dandridge. [Doc. 43] With good reason Lear was later
remembered for his kind benevolence!
These times and these men lived in the long shadow of George Washington, who was not
present but omnipresent. Several of the men involved in this courtroom drama had been brave
Revolutionary War heroes; these threw shadows of their own. But despite their legendary fame
and success, even they were overshadowed by Washington’s reputation. Yet these citizens found
their own patch of sunlight, struggled to grow and prosper. They held the hope that one day their
names too would be known, not nationally but in the annals of the small towns and cities that
supported their home states and provided a firm foundation for a young nation. All these men
lived in an age when duty was determined but rules were not yet regulated, and with this
knowledge they commanded the day.
Epilogue
13
During negotiations a question arose suggesting that money was also owed to the estate
of the Henley brothers. On March 28, 1831 M.C Auld alerted Thomas Peter and George
Washington Parke Custis that on April 7 he would issue the final decree on this last matter.
However, on receipt of this notice, Thomas Peter wrote to his lawyer, Robert J. Taylor,
Mr. Woodard (sic), the D[eputy] Marshal, has just called on me and red (sic) to me a
notice to attend in Alexa. On the 7th ten o clock at the Office of Mr. C. Auld in the suit of
the two Henleys – Mr. Woodard (sic) saw the condition in which I am in, with the Gout –
I informed him I would attend if well enough – I much doubt if I shall be able, but should
I be otherwise & the weather permit I shall certainly attend – Mr. Woodd. (sic) agreed
with me that no advantage might be taken by adverse Council that I should give you this
infor[matio]n . . . As soon as the Weather will admit & my health also, I mean to call on
you about my matters. [Doc. 47]
Once again delay ruled the day. On receipt of this information and the fact that no
attendance would be given by the defendants, M.C. Auld changed the day to May 21. This fact
was forwarded to Thomas Peter and George Washington Parke Custis. [Doc.49] But on April
29th in a surprise move, Robert J. Taylor, lawyer for Thomas Peter, submitted a supplemental
answer for his client: it was Burwell Bassett, Jr., who took charge of the boys’ educations, not
his client Thomas Peter; Bassett was appointed their guardian by a competent authority and acted
as such de facto; Bassett from time to time drew on this respondent [Thomas Peter] for sums of
money as he thought necessary for the education of his wards, all of which draughts were
answered by this respondent who refused no advance on any account. [Doc 50] Thomas Peter
swore before the Justice of the Peace that all these statements were true.
On May 9, 1831, Benjamin Lincoln Lear noted both Custis and Peter had been informed
that the case would close on May 21. [Doc. 51] But despite these intentions, the final word did
not come until October 5, 1831, when M.C. Auld determined that indeed, the estate of Martha
Washington owed the estate of Bartholomew D. Henley the sum of $312.78 and interest due
from March 1809, and owed the estate of Samuel Henley the sum of $651.98 and interest from
March 1809. And M.C. Auld could not forbear but to add, “From the various Statements made
and Postponements which were required, much time has been consumed in this case.”[Doc. 52]
The court adjourned and the case was closed.
And in an age when payment was not expected when services were rendered, a final bill
had been sent to Thomas Peter in April 1831 for twenty-six cents, the fee for filing Robert J.
Taylor’s detailed report of the care given by Burwell Bassett, Jr., to the Henley brothers. [Doc.
50] According to the custom of the day, Thomas Peter relinquished the twenty-six cents at his
leisure, in March 1832.43
1
Mary G. Powell, The History of Old Alexandria, Virginia (Richmond, Virginia: The William
Byrd Press, Inc., 1928), 229. James Grant Wilson and John Fiske, Editors. Appletons’
Cyclopaedia of American Biography, Vol. I (New York: D. Appleton and Company,
1888), 767-768; Powell, 231-232: Born in Weymouth, Massachusetts in 1769, William
Cranch entered Harvard at age fifteen and graduated in three years. He studied law under
Judge Thomas Davis of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, and established a practice
in Braintree. In 1793 he was licensed to practice law in the Supreme Court of the United
14
States and he removed to the Federal City, where John Adams appointed him a
Commissioner of Public Buildings. By 1801 he was Assistant Judge of the Circuit Court
of the District of Columbia. Although a strong Federalist, Thomas Jefferson made him
Chief Justice of the Circuit Court in 1806, a position he held for fifty years. Only two of
his decisions were ever overruled by the United States Supreme Court. He codified the
laws of the Federal City in 1821, a work that defied amendment until 1843. He published
nine volumes of reports of the Supreme Court and six volumes of reports of the circuit
court. A member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences, he died in 1855. S. Somervell
Mackall, Early Days of Washington (Washington, D.C.: The Neale Company, 1899),
291: Mackall notes that he “. . . acquired a respect and esteem which passing years have
served to increase and confirm.” See William F. Carne, “Life and Times of William
Cranch, Judge of the District Circuit Court, 1801-1855.” Records of the Columbia
Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Volume V (Washington, D.C.: Published by the
Society, 1902), 294-310. For additional information on Cranch see Alan C. Clark,
Greenleaf and Law in The Federal City (Washington, D.C.: W.F. Roberts, 1901), 47-66.
Wilhelmus Bogart Bryan, A History of the National Capital, Vol. I (New York: The
Macmillan Company, 1914), 455-456; A Provisional List of Alumni, Grammar School Students,
Members of the Board of Visitors of The College of Williams and Mary in Virginia from 16931888 (Richmond, Virginia: Division of Purchase and Printing, 1941), 40: Bruckner Thruston
(1763-1845) was born in Gloucester County, Virginia. He attended the College of William and
Mary 1784-1786, read law, and removed to Lexington, Kentucky which was then part of
Virginia. He served as Judge of the Kentucky State District Court in 1791, and Judge of the
Kentucky Circuit Court from 1802-1803. In 1805 he was appointed federal judge of the territory
of New Orleans, but was soon sent to the United States Senate as a Democratic-Republican from
the state of Kentucky 1805-1809. James Madison nominated him to the United States Circuit
Court of the District of Columbia in December 1809; he accepted this position but was forced to
vacate his seat in the Senate, where he was replaced by Henry Clay. He was judge in the Federal
City until his death in 1845. It should be noted that the spelling of his name varies; Bryan lists
him as “Buckner Thurston”; the College of William and Mary lists him as “Buckner Thruston,”
and this spelling dominates.
Bryan, 414: Little is known of the career of James S. Morsell (ND); he was admitted as
an attorney in the Federal City on March 27, 1801, and appointed an Assistant Judge in the
Circuit Court in 1815. He succeeded Judge Nicolas Fitzhugh of Virginia as Judge of the Circuit
Court and was a member until its abolition in 1863. The Georgetown Directory for The Year
1830 (Westminster, Maryland: Willow Bend Books, 2004, reprint), 11: Morsell was noted as
"Judge Circuit Court, West [P] st (sic) corner Congress [31st]" in the first Georgetown directory
separate and apart from Washington City published by Benjamin Homans.
2
Joseph E. Fields, Compiler, “Worthy Partner”: The Papers of Martha Washington (Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994), 409. Julius Burbridge Dandridge was a son of Martha
Washington’s brother Bartholomew Dandridge and therefore her nephew. He was cashier of the
United States Bank in Richmond, Virginia. Dandridge died unmarried. Although a copy of
Martha Washington’s will was included among the following court papers [Doc. 2], for reference
purposes the author consulted the transcription of the will in Fields, 406-409.
Fields, 232; Wilson Miles Cary, “The Dandridges of Virginia.” William and Mary
College Quarterly Historical Magazine. Vol. V, No. 1. July, 1896 (Richmond, Virginia: Whittet
& Shepperson, General Printers, 1896), 36: Bartholomew [Bat, Bart] Dandridge, Jr., (ca. 177215
1802) was also a son of Martha Washington’s brother Bartholomew Dandridge. He served as one
of Washington’s private secretaries, and then Secretary of Legation Court of St. James and
consul to San Domingo. He died in San Domingo unmarried.
3
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2, F
45: (recto) bill for Recording the Will, June 1802; (verso) receipt noting payment received in
full, March 1804. The will is held today in the Fairfax County Courthouse, Fairfax, Virginia. It
was temporarily lost during the Civil War when it was confiscated by a Union soldier, but later
returned to the Courthouse where it remains today.
4
It should be noted that the middle initial of Bartholomew Henley varies from “D” to “H” on
documents consulted. Cary, 38-39: Bartholomew H. Henley died dsp [decessit sine prole: died
without issue] which indicates that he was married, although no information on this marriage
could be found. Samuel Henley is noted as unmarried. See also Edward W. Callahan, List of
Officers of the Navy of the United States and of the Marine Corps from 1775-1900 (New York:
L.R. Hamersly & Co., 1901), 260: Samuel Henley is listed, but Bartholomew Henley is omitted.
5
Wilson Miles Cary, 36; A Provisional List of Alumni, etc., of the College of William and Mary,
15.
6
Ibid.
7
The Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union Annual Report 1959, "A Sale and A Suit"
(Mount Vernon, Virginia: The Mount Ladies' Association of the Union, 1960), 23. According to
this report George Deneale had gone to Mount Vernon to make a purchase for a friend, but he
reported "all the furniture worth moving" had been divided among the heirs at appraised prices.
Deneale managed to acquire only one painting.
8
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2, F
43: ND, Estate Sale List notes David Peter purchased four prints and Robert Peter, Jr., purchased
one clothes stool.
9
Fields, 393.
10
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2, F
37: ND, draft of letter to Charles Lee from George Washington Parke Custis and Thomas Peter
(unsigned) with questions regarding the will of Martha Washington.
11
Fields, 259-260: Charles Simms (1755-1819) was born in Prince William County, Virginia. He
studied law with George Mercer in Fredericksburg. He distinguished himself in the Battle of
Point Pleasant in September 1774 at the Kanawha River; when war with Britain began, he was
appointed Aide to General Hugh Mercer (ca. 1725-1777). He was a major in the 12th Virginia
Regiment in 1776 and Lieutenant-Colonel of the 6th Virginia Regiment in 1779. He resigned
from the army in 1779. In 1783 he was a founder of the Society of the Cincinnati in the state of
Virginia. By 1785 he had settled in Alexandria, where he was a delegate to the Virginia
Convention and appointed a member of the Committee to accept the United States Federal
Constitution, where he was accompanied by Patrick Henry, James Madison, John Marshall, and
George Mason. He was a captain of a flying military company, the Associated Company, in 1798
and Collector of the Port of Alexandria. Colonel Simms was a pallbearer at Washington’s
funeral. He was elected mayor of Alexandria 1812-1814; as mayor he had the unfortunate task of
surrendering the city to the British in August 1814 when Alexandria was subject to the rules and
regulations of war under the District of Columbia. He made his home in Alexandria and died
there in 1819.
Bryan, 402, 412, 424: Little is known of Thomas Swann (ND). The Alexandria
Advertiser of April 14, 1801, noted that Thomas Swann, Charles Lee, and Edmund J. Lee were
16
admitted as attorneys for the circuit court. Swann was one of President Adams’ midnight
appointments in a bill signed only four days before his term expired. Adams sent to the senate
the name of Thomas Swann to be attorney for the District of Columbia; however, President
Jefferson appointed John Thompson Mason in Swann’s place. No more information on Thomas
Swann could be located.
12
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2, F 37:
(recto) bill for legal opinions dated June and July 1802 signed by Charles Lee; (verso) receipt
dated January 31, 1803, signed by Charles Lee.
13
Fields, 408. The transcription of Martha Washington’s will and the notes appended to the
transcription included in this book have been the source for this study, pages 406-410.
14
Tudor Place Historic House and Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2,
F 42: ND, list in the hand of Thomas Peter is titled “13 Legatees”; by inadvertence Peter has
noted only twelve legatees and neglected to note his son George Washington Peter, who was also
a great grandchild of Martha Washington. Peter also inscribed Anna Maria Washington as
“Martha” or “Maria”; the name is overwritten and difficult to decipher. She may have been
known by her middle name “Maria” and in haste Peter may have written “Martha” by mistake.
According to Peter the legatees included: John Dandridge, the son of Martha
Washington’s nephew John Dandridge, who was the son of her brother Bartholomew Dandridge;
Anna Maria Washington, whose father George Augustine Washington was a nephew of George
Washington and her mother Frances Bassett Washington a niece of Martha Washington; Mary
Anna Randolph Custis (1808-1873), daughter of Martha Washington’s grandson George
Washington Parke Custis (1781-1857) and Mary Lee Fitzhugh (1788-1853); Eliza Law (17971832), daughter of Martha Washington’s granddaughter Elizabeth Parke Custis Law ( 17761831/2) and Thomas Law (1756-1834); Frances Lewis (1799-1875), Lorenzo Lewis (18031847), Agnes Lewis (1805-1820) and Angela Lewis (1813-1839), children of Martha
Washington’s granddaughter Eleanor Parke Custis Lewis (1779-1852) and Lawrence Lewis
(1767-1839), George Washington Peter (1801-1877), John Parke Custis Peter (1799-1848),
Columbia Washington Peter (1797-1820); America Pinckney Peter (1803-1842), and Britannia
Wellington Peter (1815-1911), children of Martha Washington’s granddaughter Martha Parke
Custis Peter (1777-1854) and Thomas Peter (1769-1834).
15
Susanne Williams Massie and Frances Archer Christian, Homes and Gardens in Old Virginia
(Richmond, Virginia: Garrett & Massie, Incorporated, 1931), 145-147. See Massie and Christian
for an interesting view of Eltham, the Bassett family estate in New Kent County, Virginia.
Martha Washington’s son, John [Jackie] Parke Custis (1753-1781), was removed from Yorktown
when he was stricken with Camp Fever to Eltham, where he died. Burwell Bassett, Jr., (17641841) served for many years in the Virginia general assembly and in the U.S. House of
Representatives.
16
The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Chancery Court Records, Arlington County,
Case #1836-001, John Dandridge, Etc. vs. Executor of Martha Washington. These records are
held in Virginia Memory: Digital Collections. For study purposes this letter has been designated
Document 4 by the author.
17
The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Chancery Court Records, Arlington County,
Case #1836-001, John Dandridge, Etc. vs Executors of Martha Washington.
18
Powell, 242-243.
19
Charles S. Bundy, “The History of the Office of Justice of the Peace in the District of
Columbia.” Records of the Columbia Historical Society. Volume 5 (Washington, D.C.:
17
Columbia Historical Society, 1902), 259-263; 279; 289: The first Organic Act of the District of
Columbia was approved February 27, 1801:“That there shall be appointed in, and for each of
said counties (Alexandria County, Virginia, and Washington County, Maryland) such number of
discreet persons to be justices of the peace, as the President of the United States shall from time
to time think expedient, to continue in office five years; and such justices having taken an oath
for the faithful and impartial discharge of the duties of the office, shall in all matters civil and
criminal, and whatever relates to the conservation of the peace, have all the powers vested in,
and shall perform all the duties required of, justices of the peace . . . ”. On March 3, 1801,
President John Adams named Thomas Peter, among others, justice of the peace for the County of
Washington; these justices comprised a board of commissioners with the same powers and duties
as those of the Levy Courts of Maryland, positions held in great esteem by their fellow citizens.
The list of justices, however, became known as “Adams’ Pets,” or the “Midnight Judges.”
Adams’ last minute act was the final gift from the old Federal party of George Washington to the
Republican party of Thomas Jefferson. In the last hours of the last day of his term in office
Adams sent a list of Federal judges, marshals, district attorneys, and District of Columbia
justices of the peace to the Senate. The appointments were confirmed, but Jefferson refused to
accept some of them. This led to the famous Supreme Court case Marbury vs. Madison. Thomas
Peter was appointed justice of the peace March 1st in 1801, 1807, 1812, 1817, 1823, 1828, and
1833. Peter was commissioned a member in the Levy Court from Georgetown on April 30, 1817,
May 20, 1822, April 28, 1826, April 19, 1827, May 1, 1829, April 30, 1830, and May 2, 1833.
20
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2, F
41: letter dated Richmond, January 24, 1826, J. Dandridge to Lincoln [Benjamin Lincoln Lear].
21
Ibid.,: receipt dated Washington January 30, 1826, signed by B.L. Lear.
22
Appletons’, Vol. III, 648.
23
Fields, 273-274. Martha Washington to Mary Stillson Lear, German Town August 24, 1794.
24
Fields, 408.
25
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Armistead Peter, Jr., MS 14, Box
141, F 20: Thomas L. Tullock, “Colonel Tobias Lear,” The Granite Monthly, A New Hampshire
Magazine Devoted to History, Biography, Literature and State Progress (Dover, New
Hampshire: J. N. McClintock, 1883), 5-13.
26
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2, F
61: receipt dated September 21, 1827. Robert Peter Dunlop (1795-1869), a lawyer, was a nephew
of Thomas Peter. His mother was Elizabeth Peter Dunlop, Thomas Peter’s sister, who married
James Dunlop of Hayes Manor, an estate in Montgomery County, Maryland.
27
Powell, 300. Edmund Jennings Lee (1772-1843) was born on the Lee plantation at
Leesylvania, Virginia, the fourth son of Henry and Lucy Grymes Lee and a younger brother of
Charles Lee. He attended the College of New Jersey [Princeton] and studied law. In 1796 he
married Sarah Lee, a daughter of Richard Henry Lee; they had nine children. His family resided
at what is known today as the Lee-Fendall House in Alexandria. He was elected to the
Alexandria Common Council in 1809 and became president of the Council the following year.
He was mayor of Alexandria, an office he filled from 1815-1818, and was appointed Clerk of the
Circuit Court for Alexandria County in July 1818 and served as such until 1840. He was on the
Board of Trustees of the Alexandria Academy in 1818, one of Virginia’s first free schools which
had been endowed by George Washington, and was a member of the American Colonization
Society. He died in Alexandria in 1843.
18
Appletons’, Vol. III, 727-728: Benjamin Lincoln was born in Higham, Massachusetts, in 1733.
He received a common school education and worked as a farmer until 1773, but held the offices
of magistrate, representative in the Massachusetts legislature, and secretary of the provincial
congress of Massachusetts. He was also a colonel in the militia, and appointed major-general of
the state militia in 1776. In June 1776 he cleared Boston Harbor of British vessels; by 1777 his
troops joined Washington at Morristown and he was promoted to major-general, strongly
recommended to congress by Washington in a letter of December 20, 1776. He remained
attached to Washington’s command until he was sent with General Benedict Arnold (1741-1801)
to act under General Philip Schuyler (1733-1804) against British General John Burgoyne; at
Lake George he broke Burgoyne’s line of communication. Immediately afterward he received a
severe wound from a British party, which left him lame. He was forced to retire for a year, but
rejoined the army in 1778. He was active in the siege of Yorktown and Washington held him in
such high regard that he appointed him to receive the sword of Lord Charles Cornwallis in
surrender of the British. He was secretary of war 1781-1784. When Shay’s Rebellion broke out
in western Massachusetts in 1787 he put down the revolt. He was a member of the Massachusetts
Convention that ratified the United States Constitution and president of the Massachusetts’
Society of the Cincinnati until his death in 1810.
29
Appletons’, Vol. VI, 634: George Wythe’s (1726-1806) pupils included James Monroe,
Thomas Jefferson, and Henry Clay, as well as Chief Justice Marshall. See also Virginius
Cormick Hall, Jr., Compiler, Portraits in the Collection of the Virginia Historical Society: A
Catalogue. (Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1981), 268.
30
Appletons’, Vol. IV, 221-225; Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 17741989, Bicentennial Edition (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989), 1425-1426;
A Provisional List of Alumni, etc., of the Board of Visitors of the College of William and Mary,
27.
31
Frederick C. Brightly, Editor, and Richard Peters, Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in
the Supreme Court of the United States, January Term 1829 (New York: Banks & Brothers, Law
Publishers, 1883), 237.
32
Ibid.; Little is known about Robert J. Taylor. His middle initial is given variously as “J”,”I”, or
“H”, which could attribute to the dearth of information about him. Historic Alexandria
Quarterly, “A History of Lloyd House, Part I, The Early Years: 1796-1832”. Fall 2003/Winter
2004. (Alexandria, Virginia: 2004), 6. There is reference to Taylor as a lawyer in Alexandria
who dealt exclusively in real estate. Bryan, 424: Bryan notes only that “Robert I. Taylor was
listed as an attorney in the Alexandria Advertiser of April 14, 1801.” Powell, 312: Powell
describes Robert I. (sic) Taylor as an eminent lawyer in Alexandria who died leaving four sons.
33
Brightly, 237.
34
Ibid., 238.
35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid., 241.
38
Ibid., 240.
39
Ibid., 241.
40
ID No. MSS51862, Anna Maria Brodeau Thornton Papers, Library of Congress, Washington,
D.C.: entries dated June 15, 1829, September 27, 1829, November 30, 1829.
41
William Bolles, Editor, An Explanatory and Phonographic Pronouncing Dictionary of the
English Language (New London, Connecticut: Bolles & Co., 1850), 354, 91.
28
19
42
Historic Alexandria Quarterly, 5-8: Jacob Hoffman (ND), who may have been among a group
of German-Americans who migrated from Pennsylvania to Virginia in the late 18th century, was
a merchant with a shop on Fairfax Street in Alexandria, Virginia, in the late 1790s. He was a
mercantile dealer who dealt in dry goods and imported fabrics. By 1803 he served as director of
the Alexandria Library Company and was elected mayor 1803-1804. He was city tax collector
1804-1805, and served as councilman 1805-1806, 1811-1813, and in 1816-1817. He was elected
mayor again 1818-1820. He was another of the Federalist “Midnight Judges” appointed by John
Adams to serve as Justice of the Peace, although his appointment was nullified under Thomas
Jefferson by Congress. Eventually he built and owned a large sugar refinery in Alexandria, but
he speculated frequently and unsuccessfully in real estate and was forced to sell his refinery and
property in June 1825. His real estate lawyer was Robert J. Taylor (see supra).
43
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden Archive, Papers of Martha Washington, MS 3, Box 2,
F 46: receipt inscribed “Received the above twenty Six cents 16th Match 1832,” and signed M.
Tippett for Edm. J. Lee.
Bibliography
Biographical Directory of the United States Congress 1774-1989, Bicentennial Edition.
Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1989.
Bolles, William, Editor. An Explanatory and Phonographic Pronouncing Dictionary of the
English Language. New London, Connecticut: Bolles & Co., 1850.
Brightly, Frederick C., Editor, and Richard Peters. Reports of Cases Argued and Adjudged in the
Supreme Court of the United States, January Term 1829. New York: Banks & Brothers, Law
Publishers, 1883.
Bryan, Wilhelmus Bogart. A History of the National Capital: From Its Foundation Through the
Period of the Adoption of The Organic Act. Volume I: 1790-1814. New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1914.
Bundy, Charles S. “A History of the Office of Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.”
Records of the Columbia Historical Society. Volume 5. Washington, D.C.: Published by the
Society, 1902, pp. 259-293.
Callahan, Edward W. List of Officers of the Navy of the United States and of the Marine Corps
from 1775-1900. New York: L.R. Hamersly & Co., 1901.
Cary, Wilson Miles. “The Dandridges of Virginia.” William and Mary College Quarterly
Historical Magazine. Volume V, No. 1. (July, 1896) Richmond, Virginia: Whittet & Shepperson,
General Printers, 1896, pp. 30-39.
Fields, Joseph E., Compiler. “Worthy Partner”: The Papers of Martha Washington. Westport,
Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1994.
20
Historic Alexandria Quarterly. “A History of Lloyd House, Part I/ The early Years: 1796-1832.”
Fall 2003/Winter 2004.
Homans, Benjamin, Compiler. The Georgetown Directory for The Year 1830. Westminster,
Maryland: Willow Bend Books, 2004, reprint.
Mackall, S. Somervell. Early Days of Washington. Washington, D.C.: The Neale Company,
1899.
Massie, Susanne Williams and Frances Archer Christian. Homes and Gardens in Old Virginia.
Richmond, Virginia: Garrett & Massie, Inc., 1931.
Powell, Mary G. The History of Old Alexandria, Virginia. Richmond, Virginia: The William
Byrd Press, Inc., 1928.
The College of William & Mary. A Provisional List of Alumni, Grammar School Students,
Members of the Faculty, and Members of the Board of Visitors of The College of William and
Mary in Virginia, from 1693 to 1888. Richmond, Virginia: Division of Purchase and Printing,
1941.
The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, Chancery Court Records, Arlington County, Case
#1836-001: John Dandridge, Etc. vs. Executors of Martha Washington.
The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association of the Union Annual Report 1959, “A Sale and A Suit.”
Mount Vernon, Virginia: The Mount Ladies’ Association of the Union, 1960, pp. 21-25.
Tullock, Thomas L. “Colonel Tobias Lear.” The Granite Monthly, A New Hampshire Magazine
Devoted to History, Biography, Literature and State Progress. Dover, New Hampshire: J.N.
McClintock, 1883, pp. 5-14.
Wilson, James Grant and John Fiske, Editors. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography.
New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888.
Reference Works
Bixby, W.K., Compiler. Letters and Recollections of George Washington. New York:
Doubleday, Page & Company, 1906.
Black, Henry Campbell. Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing
Company, 1951, 4th edition.
Blum, John M., Bruce Catton, Edmund S. Morgan, Arthur M. Schlessinger, Jr., Kenneth M.
Stampp, C. Vann Woodward, Editors. The National Experience. New York: Harcourt, Brace &
World, Inc., 1963.
21
Carne, William F. Carne. “Life and Times of William Cranch, Judge of the District Circuit
Court, 1801-1855.” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., Volume V.
Washington, D.C.: Published by the Society, 1902, pp. 294-310.
Clark, Allen C. Greenleaf and Law in The Federal City. Washington, D.C.:W.F. Roberts, 1901.
Hall, Virginius Cornick, Jr., Compiler. Portraits in the Collection of the Virginia Historical
Society. Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia, 1981.
Hallowell, Benjamin. Autobiography of Benjamin Hallowell. Philadelphia: Friends’ Book
Association, 1883.
Poore, Ben: Perley. Perley’s Reminiscences of Sixty Years in the National Metropolis. Volumes
I & II. Philadelphia, Chicago, Kansas City: Hubbard Brothers, Publishers, 1886.
Archives and Libraries
Library of Congress, Washington, District of Columbia
The Library of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia
The College of William and Mary, Special Collections Research Center, Earl Gregg Swem
Library, Williamsburg, Virginia
Tudor Place Historic House & Garden, Washington, District of Columbia
Acknowledgements
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, District of Columbia
Denise Spencer, Management Analyst, Fairfax County Circuit Court, Fairfax, Virginia
Katrina R. Krempasky, Fairfax Circuit Court Historic Records, Fairfax, Virginia
Susan A. Riggs, Manuscripts and Rare Books Librarian, The College of William and Mary, Earl
Gregg Swem Library, Williamsburg, Virginia
Anne T. Johnson, Special Collections Assistant, The College of William and Mary, Earl Gregg
Swem Library, Williamsburg, Virginia
Professor Josh Chafetz, Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, New York
22