12 
Indiana University Studies 
When Imlay left Kentucky and America he also left behind 
him more than one personal obligation which he was never to 
redeem. Besides his bond to Rogers and the more trouble- 
some one to Cleveland, which had already been long in the 
courts, there was the matter of the agreement with Hite. Be- 
ginning in October, 1787, the clerk of the Supreme Court 
vainly issued writ after wriH® in an attempt to bring Imlay 
to Danville for trial, first in answer to Hite's charge and later 
for contempt as well. The sheriffs of Nelson and Jefferson 
Counties reported Imlay both in 1787 and 1788 as not to be 
found in their bailiwicks, and in 1789 the court ordered both 
the defendants to be advertised.^'^ As late as 1793 the bill 
was continued by the Supreme Court thruout the year, and 
until March, 1794, when it abated by the death of the 
plaintiff. Four years later, however, it was revived by Hite's 
heirs in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Nelson County, 
which had received the jurisdiction formerly possessed by the 
Supreme Court. The case was now rapidly brought to a close. 
It was advertised in a newspaper^^ and posted at the doors 
of meeting-house and courthouse ; and on October 14, 1799, 
the bill against Imlay was taken as confessed, and final judg- 
ment was given.^^ 
I have not sent the letter you enclosed me in search of Mr. Imlay, because I am told 
by my brother, who is much better acquainted with him than I am, that he either now 
is, or will very soon be in New York.” The following paragraph refers to some notes, 
with which Imlay may or may not have had something to do, and then goes on to 
deplore the danger which at that time existed that the men of the Western country 
might embroil the United States with Spain. The brother whom Marshall mentions 
as being well acquainted with Imlay may have been the James Marshall of Kentucky 
to whom, indeed, Imlay must have been well known (see Imlay’s memorandum to 
James Marshall, as cited above, footnotes 9 and 25). It is clear, however, that the 
statement made in this letter regarding the whereabouts of Imlay is merely a con- 
jecture: if Imlay did not actually arrive in New York when Marshall’s brother sup- 
posed he would, it was not the first time that this shifty adventurer had failed to 
appear at the time and place expected. All that this letter can be said to prove is 
that in January, 1787, an attempt was being made to communicate with Imlay, or at 
least to determine' where he was -and the evident difficulty of finding him at that time 
may well be explained by the testimony of Hite showing that Imlay had already left 
America. 
For these writs and for other documents showing the later history of the case, 
see file of Chancery Decrees, 1798 to 1800, Nelson County Circuit Court, as cited above. 
When the old Supreme Court was suspended, these documents, with jurisdiction in the 
case, were transferred to what was then the Court of Quarter Sessions of Nelson County. 
39 Ogden had perhaps carried out his plan to go to “New Georgia, near Augusteen”, 
of which he had written to Hite from Baltimore in 1786. (See Odgen to Hite, July 28. 
1786, in file of Chancery Decrees, 1798 to 1800, as cited above.) 
The Palladium (Frankfort), November 13, 1798, to January 22, 1799, in the Dur- 
rett Collection, University of Chicago. 
See Order Book, Quarter Sessions Court, Nelson County, for February, 1797, to 
February, 1800, p. 233. 
