Case ID: ga_41/html/0049-01.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

HENRY J. LAMAR, plaintiff in error, v. SINGLETON A. THORNTON et al., defendants in error.
    (Atlanta,
    June Term, 1870.)
    SCALING ORDINANCE OF 1865—EVIDENCE TO SUSTAIN VERDICT—APPELLATE PRACTICE.—This case falls within the Scaling Ordinance of 1865, and as there was evidence to sustain the verdict, this Court will not interfere.
    Relief. New Trial. Before Judge Harrell. Randolph Superior Court. November Term, 1869.
    Lamar sued Thornton, as principal, and Leroy C. Sale, as his security, upon a promissory note for $2,250 00, made by them on the 1st of January, 1862, due the 1st of January, *1864, with interest from date, payable to E. B. Loyless, or bearer. Both defendants were served. In May, 1867, there was a trial, and he obtained a verdict for only $1,522 50. He moved for a new trial and it was granted. The plea began, “and now come the defendants, S. A. Thornton and L. C. Sale, by their attorney, C. B. Wooten,” and proceeds to set up as a defense that said note was given in part payment for a plantation, at $10 00 per acre, which was worth but $2 00 or $3 00 per acre, and was to be paid in Confederate currency, and that “they” had ever been ready to pay it in such currency, “that he” owned at the date of the note eleven slaves, worth $7,000 00, and other personalty worth $4,000 00 or $5,000 00, $10,000 00 of which was “lost by the results of the war, and without the fault of said defendants;” and that Sales lost thirty or forty slaves, worth $20,000 00, which were “lost by the result of the war.” It was sworn to on the 1st of November,' 1869, by Thornton only.
    On the trial plaintiff introduced the note, and testified that nearly two years before said note was due he bought it from Dr. Harrison in payment of a bona fide debt due by him to plaintiff; that Harrison told him the note was given for land and had he heard of any defense to it, or had he not believed it would be paid at maturity, he would not have received it.
    For the defense, Thornton testified that said note was given In part payment for nine hundred acres of land in said county, at $9,000 00, that he immediately took possession of the land and is in possession yet; that before the war said land was worth $4 00 or $5 00 per acre, that when he bought it, it was worth $2 00 or $3 00 per acre in gold; that it is now worth $4 00 or $5 00 per acre, though he did not wish to sell and could not say what he would take for the land, that soon after the surrender he offered it at $3 00 per acre but could not get it, in consequence of the unsettled condition of the country. Further, he testified that he lost his slaves, worth between $7',000 00 and $8,000 00, by the war; that he .went some time, (he thought it was in 1864) to see said Loyless to pay the note, but Loyless told him he had traded it off. *What the Court charged does not appear, except inferentially from the motion for a new trial. The jury found for the plaintiff but $720 00 and costs.
    Plaintiff’s counsel moved for a new trial upon the grounds that Sales had filed no defense, nor did it appear from the pleadings or evidence what property Sales had, at the date of said note, nor upon the faith of what property the credit was given; because the Court erred in charging the jury that it was not necessary to Thornton’s defense for Sales to plead, nor for Thornton to plead or show what property Sales owned at the date of the note, in order to show upon the faith of what property the credit was given; because it did not appear from the pleadings or evidence that such loss was occasioned in any way by plaintiff, and because the verdict was contrary to law, the charge of the Court, etc. The Court refused a new trial, and that is assigned as error.
    E. L. Douglass, B. S. Worrill, Lyon & Irvin, for plaintiff in error.
    C. B. Wooten, A. Hood, for defendants.
   By the Court—

BROWN, C. J.,

delivering the opinion.

The evidence shows that the note was given in January, 1862, and was payable on the 1st of January, 1864. It is therefore one of, the class on contracts embraced in the Scaling Ordinance of 1865. There was evidence upon which the jury were justified in finding that the note was given for land at $10 00 per acre, which at the time was not worth more than $3 00 in specie per acre, and which at the time of the trial was only worth $4 00 or $5 00 per acre. Upon this proof of the consideration of the note, and of the value thereof, the jury found about one-third of the principal of the note. It was the right of the other party to have introduced evidence of the kind and value of the currency, at the time of the trade, or at any time, but he did not choose to do so. Upon the evidence before them we cannot say the jury so far abused the powers given them by the Ordinance as to justify our interference. Judgment affirmed.