University of Virginia Library

Arthur Spicer Brockenbrough
Bill of Exception

The separate Bill of exceptions of Arthur S Brockenbrough to the report of the
Commissioners Yeamans Smith and Otis Manson in the case depending in the Superior
court of Chancery holden in Staunton in which James Oldham is plaintiff and the Rector &
Visitors of the University of Virginia and A S Brockenbrough are defendents--

The said Smith & Manson commissioners appointed to View, Measure & affix the proper
prices to the work done at the University of Virginia by said Oldham met at the University
of Virginia agreeable to notice on Saturday the 10th of April in the after noon, and
adjourned over to the 12th to meet at the same place, met agreeable to adjournment and
entered on the business, Viewed a portion of the work but did not measure any--they
adjourned over to the next morning (the 13th) to meet at the same place after breakfast, the
said commissioners did not meet at the University agreeable to adjournment on the morning
of the 13th. where this defendent was in waiting all that day--On their adjournment on the
12th they went from the University to Fitches Tavern in Charlottesvill[e] and that night
entered on the business, and continued all the next day (the 13th) at the same place engaged
in the business, without giving this defendent any notice of their intention to do so, this
defendent considered it important to attend the commissioners and intended doing so if they
had not received him by changing their place of meeting without giving him notice there
of--In confirmation of the aforesaid change of the place of business by the commissioners I
beg leave to call the attention of his Court to the Subjoined affidavits on that subject--This
defendent considering the Commissioners, bound by the order of Court to remeasure the
whole or such parts of the work as either party required rested satisfied by noting on a copy
of Oldhams bill such part as he deemed necessary to remeasure, they did not remeasure the
work required of them by this defendent--But proceeded to settle the accounts, by the papers
then before them--

The commissioners in their report, State they "did not deem if necessary to measure all the
work as will be Seen by refering to their explanations in the account in different parts,
having been measured & sanctioned by the defendent Brockenbrough, but such as was not
measured & sanctioned previous to the institution of this suit, they have affixed the prices of
all the items not allowed by the said defendent in the bill certified by him"--This defendent
enters his most solemn protest against the mode in which the Commissioners adopted in the
settlement of the acounts--they "did not deem it necessary to measure all" or any part of the
work altho' particularly requested so to do by this defendent--they have taken copies of the
plaintifs original Bills, and consider parts thereof as measured & sanctioned by this
defendent and other parts settled agreeable to their ideas of the prices given in the price
Book--in consequences of their changing their place of Meeting without giving notice this
defendent had no opportunity of objecting to their mode of settlement they should have
measured as far as was required and priced every item agreeable to the price book. This it
will be seen by their own report they did not do--This defendent agreed to many
measurements & prices in the first instance, with the view & hope of getting the accounts of
james Oldham settled, not withstanding this defendents belief that they were over the prices
given in the price book, if one item is to be settled by the commissioners agreeable to the
price book let all be examined and settled by the same guide. This defendent has been at all
times willing to give to the plaintif such prices as other undertakers received as
satisfactory--

This defendent not only objects to the report but to the commissioners themselves, not as
deficient in integrity, but for the want of a thorough Knowledge of the complicated
Philadelphia Price Book by which they were to be governed, neither of them as they
informed this defendent had ever seen that price book before--and consequently from the
hurried manner in which the business was transacted might have put wrong constructions on
many of the prices layed down in that book--those different constructions may be so put on
the prices of work in the aforesaid book,--I must call your attention to the fact, that this
defendent has settled with all the other undertakers of similar work to that of the plaintifs &
he alone is contending for higher prices--The commissioners state in their report they
consider the plaintiff entitled to the same compensation for the work executed under the
third contract that he was under the first--The first contract was made between the Rector &
the Plaintif specifying the work to be executed by the said plaintif (See Thomas Jeffersons
letter to the plaintif in his first Bill dated April 8 1819) The second arrangement for doing
work at the University was made by this defendent & the plaintif there was no written
contract but this defendent agreed to continue to give the plaintif the same prices for the
work on the East Street one Hotel & nine dormitories that he had under the contract with the
Rector--When the Buildings on the West street of the University was ordered to be erected,
this defendent gave notice to most of the Undertakers at the University that a deduction of
ten per cent would be made from the former prices for said building on the west street, The
Undertakers had a meeting on the subject, the plaintif Oldham was with them consequently
was made acquainted with the terms on which the work was offered (see the subjoined
affidavits on that subject) This defendent moreover informed the plaintif in a very short time
after the work was undertaken by him that such deduction would be made from the former
prices for the work undertaken by him on the west street which was the third & last
arrangement with the plaintif for work--

Your commissioners in this case, in the place of Measureing and pricing the work have
taken the plaintiffs accounts and have made their report from them, setting forth that this
defendent had sanctioned them, altho not present at their meeting--They have not even made
out bills for the work showing the prices they allowed for the work thereby puting it entirely
out of my power to detect any error that may have been made by them they have deducted
the sum of one hundred & seven dollars thirteen cents from the sums pd. the plaintiff
alleging it to be entered on a due Bill and at the close of their report say "Interest to be
added"--

For the aforesaid assigned reasons this defendent pray the Court to set aside the report of the
aforesaid Commissioners in this case

Arthur S Brockenbrough

DS, ViU:PP, 6p. See Oldham's Lawsuit against the University, 20 November 1823. The
enclosed affidavits have not been identified.