Case ID: ga_40/html/0656-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Brown, C. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John L. Smith, plaintiff in error, vs. Joseph Belk et al., executors, defendants in error.
    1. A note given in 1866 in renewal of a former note, for a debt due prior to June, 1865, is a new contract, and is not embraced in the Act known as the Relief law of 1868. And it was not error in the Court below to order the' pleas filed under the Relief Act stricken, if they do not contain matter good as a defense under the laws, applicable to contracts made since June, 1865.
    2. The plea of tender in this case was insufficient under the law applicable to th case.
    Relief Act. Before Judge Johnson. Marion Superior Court. September Term, 1869.
    Joseph Belk et al., as executors of Joseph Belk, sued Smith upon his promissory notes, made the 26th of March, 1866. Smith pleaded that these notes “ were founded upon a contract for the payment of money made prior to the first day of June, 1865;” that he then owned property worth $33,225, upon the faith of which said credit was given; that of this property $20,000 was represented by slaves, since lost by emancipation; that, at the close of the war, his property Vas worth but $7,033, and that the loss was tc in consequence of the war and its termination ;” that “ he tendered payment in the currency of the country to plaintiff’s testator on or about the first of January, 1863, which was refused. For further plea; he said these notes were in renewal of a note by Smith due to testator prior to June, 1865, and testator, on or about the first of January, eighteen hundred and sixty-thfee, agreed that if Smith would raise. Confederate treasury notes, he, testator, would take them in payment of said note; and thereupon Smith, at great trouble and expense to himself, a few days afterwards, by the sale of his property, and by borrowing from his friends, raised the amount due on said old note, tendereddt to testator, and he refused to accept it; that after-wards he gave said renewal notes in ignorance of his rights under said tender. These pleas were demurred to, the demurrer was sustained, and plaintiff had judgment, ^mith assigns as error the sustaining of said demurrer.
    
      M. H. Blanford, E. W. Miller, for plaintiff in error.
    B. B. Hinton, for defendants.
   Brown, C. J.

1. A note given in 1866 in renewal of a former note for a debt due prior to June, 1865, is a new contract, and is'not embraced in the Act known as tbe Relief law of 1868. And it was not error in the Court below to order the pleas filed under the Relief Act stricken, if they do not contain matter good as a defense under the laws applicable to contracts made since June, 1865.

2. The plea of tender in this case was insufficient under the law applicable to the case.

Judgment affirmed.