This file contains opinions from the attorney general in answer to questions relating to the award of military bounty land. These were issued in 1807, 1809-1810, 1831, 1834-1835, and 1857. Many of the cases involved the heirs of deceased claimants and their rights in claiming military bounty land. Specific cases referred to include those of Nicholas Hobson, William Spencer, Col. George Brooke, and Capt. John Rogers. Other opinions were given in regard to the land bounty for chaplains, surgeons, and surgeons mates; the service requirements for non-commissioned officers under the Act of 1779; whether land warrants should be considered as real or personal estate; and what date should be considered the end of the war for purposes of determining land claims. Correspondents in this file include Registers of the land office William Price, Edward C. Davis, Charles Blagrove, William Seldon, and Stafford H. Parker; Attorneys General Phillip Norborne Nicholas, John Robertson, and James Lyons; Richmond lawyer Benjamin W. Leigh; and Daniel L. Hylton, Clerk of the Council.

The second file contains opinions presented by the attorney general in reply to requests from the register for answers to questions relating to various types of land problems. These opinions were given in the years 1791, 1794-1796, 1798, 1801, 1803, 1806, 1811-1812, 1814-1815, 1823, 1826, 1828, 1830, 1842, 1852, and 1859. The opinions given related to the receiving of surveys and issuing of grants; caveats attached to warrants; surveys lodged in the late secretary's office; and title investigations and resurveying. Some specific cases referred to include those of John Crawford, Henry Stockwell, James Caldwell, James Walkin, John Brambles, George Elliott, Jonathan Wood, Samuel Dew, and Fletcher H. Mays. Correspondents in this file include John Marshall, John W. Robertson, William Price, James Innes, Philip Norborne Nicholas, W. P. Bocock, and William Pendleton.

The final item is a letter from Virginia's congressional delegation to Jacob Thompson, Secretary of the Interior, objecting to a recent policy decision regarding the Scrip Act of 1852. The decision was contrary to opinions given by the Virginia attorney general and under which the commonwealth had been operating. The delegation complained that the given construction constituted a virtual repeal of the act; in the letter, they transcribed much of the act and analyzed the language and interpretation.