Case ID: tenn_52/html/0106-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Nicholson, C. J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John Crockett v. D. V. Alexander and another.
    
    1. Peivitt on Contract. A held a note on L in 1865, in discharge of which L paid to A a live hundred dollar bill of the Bank of Tennessee issued in October, 1861. A afterward gave this five hundred dollar bill to C as collateral security for debt owing by him to C, and, the bill not being redeemed, C filed a bill in Chancery Court to hold L responsible to him for the amount of the bill paid to A, on the ground that it was illegally issued by the bank, and worthless. Held, there being no privity between C and L, the bill in chancery could not be maintained.
    
      2. BANK op Tennessee Notes. Nexo issue. Bank of Tennessee notes issued after April, 1861, taken between citizens of the State, without fraud or duress, in payment of obligations were a valid discharge of the debts for which so taken.
    FROM OBION.
    Appeal from May Special Term, 1868, of Chancery Court at Troy. John Somers, Ch.
    Cochran & Enloe for complainants.
    Spl. Hill for defendants.
   Nicholson, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

D. "Vh Alexander held a note on C. T. Love in March, 1865, which was paid off by Love and taken up. In payment, Love let Alexander have a five hundred dollar bank bill on the Bank of Tennessee, issued in October, 1861. Alexander deposited this bill with complainant John Crockett for the loan of that amount of other money, but with the understanding that Alexander was to redeem it. Alexander failed to redeem it, and Crockett files his bill to make Love responsible for the note, on the ground that it was illegally issued and worthless when he paid it to Alexander.

The complainant must fail on two distinct grounds:

First. If the bank bill were worthless, and constituted no payment of Love’s note to Alexander, yet Crockett has no right of action against Love, there being no privity between Love and Crockett, and no contract expressed or implied.

Second. We have held in several causes that payments made in the notes of the Bank of Tennesse, issued after the commencement of the war, were good and valid in transactions between citizens unaffected by fraud or duress. The payment made by Love to Alexander was a discharge of the debt, and Alexander has no right of action against Love, much . less has Crockett, to whom Alexander transferred the note.

The decree is reversed, and the bill dismissed with costs.