Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-11-27
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
nEFTrIAE.
opinions or tue Supreme coErtof the state
or Teunessec, az Knoxville, September


opinions or tue supreme Court Of the state
or Tennessec, "a Knoxville, September
Term, 1850.
samusl w. Doak vs. The ExecntoTs Of Samuel snapp.
The complainant charges in his bill that an action
of covenant is pending against him in the Circuit
Court of Greene county, IN behalf Of SnapP upon
| the following obligation:
| For aud in consideration of Georgia State Bonds
amounting TO $3.50 in the hands Of said S. NJ Doak
| this day ordered to me by Samuel Snapp, J. Samuel
| W. DOak promise to pay the said Snapp interest on
said bonds at the rate Of per cent il half yearly
payments from this date. And / moreover promise
| to pay before the 10Th of April lS45 TO the
said Snapp or order, the S2.250 in Georgia State
| Bonds, or their equivalent in other money" The
same instrument also conveys in trust tract of
land for the security Of the debt Dated Sd
October, 1912. The bill further charges that
the bonds were borrowed for the purpose of sell
ling them 10 raisefunds for the payment ofhis debts
which was pressing upon him, and that they were
only worth atthat time so cts in the dollar and that
was as much as realized for them. All this
known to Snapp And that they were not worth
more than that in April, ls45, in the county of
Greene, where the covenant was to be performed.
The object OF the bill is to have the damages fixed at
that rate instead Of the nominal amount, or the
value Of the bonds other markets. and also to OBJ
tain credits for payments made. 1t is also insisted
that the contract was usurious.
Demurrer to the bill was dIsallowed
The Chancellor decreed, that there was no usury
in the transaction and the Georgia bonds were not
paid on the 9th April, lS45 Snapp entitled I'M
der the covenant to their equivalent in money, that
is, what such bonds would have then COMMANDED IN
cash, in the principal markets in the United States
for such stocks 1t is insisted that the measure OF
damages is the value selling price of such bonds
in Greene county where the contract was made and
to be performed and not in any distant market or the
value of them in money at the time they were OBJ 4
tanned which was about fifty cents IN the dollar
Ii was known by Snapp that Doak wanted them 70 4
.l-tt only sail
amount THIS is the only debatabe question in the
as there is pretense of usury IN the transac-
ton 1t was sale of stocks to be repaid in kind, or
if not whatever such stocks might be worth at that
time. not their nominal amount This case has no
resemblance to that of Lanier VS.. The Nashville
Bank and some others of that kind IN which the
object and purpose was to conceal and cover oYera
usurious transaction by the loan or sale OF deprec
ated bank notes to be paid IN money The principle
laid by Judge Story in the Bank OF the United States
VS. Wagponer 9 Peters AIS, appeared in Turrey
against the State Bank. Hump. 409, is the true
rule in all such cases. To constitute usury there
must be an intention knowingly to contract for and
to take usurious interest, tor If neither party |
intended it. and acted bona fide and innocent
" the law will not infer a corrupt agreement"
There must be al attempt and purpose by
some shift or device to evade the usury laws
It wonld not necessarily follow if the bonds
were sold for their nominal value, when they
were much deprecated to be paid in full at a given
time that it would be usurious, that would depend
on the intention and purposes of the parties wheth
er it was continuance TO get usurious interest or
lot. The stocks or even deprecated bank notes
might be worth to the purchaser or borrower more
han they would then sell for, or even the lender
might prefer to keep them for the chances for i'm
in value, rather than part with theu at
ess than the amount for which they called on their
face. But in this case there was a sale OF stocks
bearing SIX per cent to be paid back in three years
n the same kind of stocks reserving only six per
cent in the meantime. If not paid in kind, then the
parties agreed that not their nominal amount at the
lime but their equivalent, that is whatever they
might be worth in money should be paid.
But the main question is by what rule is the
equivalent in money to be ascertained On this
question of damages for breach of contract there
much complication and contradiction in the books,
account of the variety of aspects in which it is
presented and conflicting opinions of courts and
writer's. Without going into the general subject,
On which perhaps too much has been already writ
en-, it is enough to say that we think the rule ap-
Piled by the Chancellor to this particular is the
correct one. At all events it is sufficiently favorable
10 DOak.
IkThe covenant to pay over 9Th of April, 1915,
Georgia State bonds of the nominal value of S2250
was on that day broken and what is the damage to
Snapp! Whatever shat was, both the law and the
for the latter conforms to the rule Of the
Ormer in the provision that the equivalent in money
hall be paid unjust be recovered.
The contract does not fix the place market in
which the value of the bonds in money shall be as
As the parties lived in Greene, it is cOnended that
was the place of payment, and the market value of
uch bonds at that place is the criterion of damages
although it might appear that in Savannah or New
I Ork such stocks were selling currently and freely
It that time for fifty even a hundred per cent. |
more than in the county of Greene. II this were So
~ few days travel or even transmission by mail, if
he covenant had been performed by the delivery Of
he bonds the highest prices could have been obtain
d. There is no market for such stocks in many To-
in Tho xvof(n
n consequence of this there is market value es-
lblished and if any, in consequence OF want of de-
land and competition, sales may have 10 be made {
great sacrifice. Shall a person who has broken 1
is covenant by failing or refusing to deliver the
locks escape by paying so cents in the dollar, when
e can by going to the usua and proper market OBJ
lin so or 80 cents.
This is not an action for the recovery of damages
Dr. the nondelivery Of merchandise specific arti
les in which the rule IS well settled that the mea
ure Of damages is the difference of the article con-
racted for the day it should have been delivered
nd the price agreed to be paid for it. Sedgwich on
lam. 276 text and note l, is it a contract sim
ly TO replace steCks for the purchase of stocks
which is discussed in the Immediately succeeding
ages of the same book, but it is a contract to pay
Dr. S2250 in certain stocks of that nominal amount,
T what such stocks may be worth in money on
cer, ain day. So the only question is 20 the
node Ofascerainng the value of the State bonds on
hat day in cash. 1t will be observed there is no
lace fixed in the contract for the payment Of the
Onds or the money. We have been referred to no
uthority 90 The precise point But we are satisfied
hat the correct rule in such IS that the cove
anter is confined to any particular place.where
indeed there may be no market fOf such stocks, but
hat the principle stock markets of the cities may be
eferred to- TO ascertain the value prices of such
chancellor to deduct from this the necessary ex-
enses, if any, that may have to be incurred in
ertng the stocks into money. G
Upon the whole we think the decree is right and
firm il. CARUTHERs.
true copy, test c. w. NELSON, elk.