Browsing named entities in Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 2. You can also browse the collection for December, 1841 AD or search for December, 1841 AD in all documents.

Your search returned 2 results in 2 document sections:

Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 2, Chapter 23: return to his profession.—1840-41.—Age, 29-30. (search)
awaited him as soon as he was ready to resume it. He had his share of the business of the office to which Hillard had solely attended in his absence. Professor Greenleaf and Mr. Fletcher gave him a place as junior in some causes in which they were engaged; and clients sometimes came to him under the impression that Judge Story would listen kindly to his arguments. He was retained in several patent causes, His appearance in cases is noted in Law Reporter, Jan., 1841, Vol. III. p. 383; Dec., 1841, Vol. IV. p. 301; Boston Advertiser, Nov. 12, 15, and 16, and Dec. 23, 1841. In the patent case of Reed v. Robinson,—Law Reporter, Jan., 1842, Vol. IV. p. 342,—his elaborate brief did not convince Judge Story. the chief of which related to the Phillips patent for friction matches. William Brooks v. Ezekiel Byam et al. Professor Greenleaf, who had been employed to contest the validity of this patent, entrusted to Sumner after his return the direction and labor of the contestant's case
Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 2, Chapter 25: service for Crawford.—The Somers Mutiny.—The nation's duty as to slavery.—1843.—Age, 32. (search)
ing to get back to the bar. He told me a week ago of Lord Aberdeen's reception of he note of last March, on what has been called the right of visit, but which I call the right of inquiry. It seems that Mr. Everett read Webster's note, when Lord Aberdeen made what seems to me—as it seemed to Webster the extraordinary statement that he did not agree with the doctrine put forth by Sir Robert Peel in the House of Commons on this subject. He added that his note—a very able one, I think — of December, 1841, was written currente calamo; and he was astonished that it had stood so well as it had. He found nothing important in Webster's note to take exception to; but he thought he might undertake to reply to one or two things in it. This he has never done; and Mr. Webster considers Lord Aberdeen a convert to his doctrine. If my Lord is a convert, there are some Americans who are not. Old Mr. Adams is not; and he is determined to find an occasion to express his views. He told me that he agree<