In the Real Estate Controversy That Rocked Early New York, Lead Counsel Aaron Burr Reaches Out to Make Common Cause With Former Mayor Richard Varick

In his will in 1798, prosperous brewer Medcef Eden left one portion of his vast Manhattan real estate holdings to his son Joseph and another to his son Medcef Jr., with the proviso that if either died without children, the other son would inherit the deceased brother’s share. In case both sons died without children, the property would go to other relatives. First, Joseph died without children, and then Medcef Jr. died also without children, leaving his estate to his wife and others of his choosing. The other relatives claimed the property should go to them, while whose who inherited from Medcef Jr. claimed they were the proper owners, as title had vested in Medcef Jr. by law regardless of the language in the will. Meanwhile, those who held title by purchase from the legatees of Medcef Jr. had sold portions of the property, one parcel going to former New York mayor and Revolutionary War colonel Richard Varick. And to complicate things even further, there were mortgages on some of the property that were assigned to the purchasers.

So who owned what? The case ended up before the New York Supreme Court. Aaron Burr was known as an astute real estate lawyer and he was brought in to represent the Medcef Jr. legatees. He selected as his associate counsel an up and coming attorney named Martin Van Buren, and it was Van Buren who mainly appears in the court records.

Here Burr reaches out to Varick, seeking to make common cause. Autograph letter signed, New York, May 10, 1820, to Varick. “The Bank of New York in their corporate name, in the name of Charles Wilkes, and in that of Charles Wilkes assignee of Olcott, have lately attempted to revive by score facias nine judgments which, about 20 years ago, were entered against Medcef Eden the younger now deceased. The sci. fac. in those cases was served on the occupants of the lands (of whom George Griffin Esq. is one) styling them terre-tenants [persons in possession of land], and judgments of revival have been entered in case on behalf of the terre-tenants. I shall on Friday next move to set aside those judgments of revival, believing that the original judgments were either fraudulently obtained or that they have been paid or discharged. Having understood that you claim some interest in the premises in the possession of Mr. Griffin, I ask your concurrence and aid in the measures proposed to be taken for setting aside these judgments on revival.”

Since there was so much property and money at stake, and there was a trail of litigation that stretched over two decades, the book The American Lawyer calls this “the celebrated Medcef Eden controversy.”