Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1861-05-18
NUMBER AZ

evidence OF the value Of the plaintiffs Interest IN the
proun OF the psrtneEship; that al that Aed BE-
dooa there Was TO reach he gaEe Of tie command Of
Ssagls Voyags not Of successive snt mss or invest
ment. Aad even as TO this case Mr.. SseguIck in his
work on the Measure Of Damages 90. ssys: There
is 9 great u ;ulty, however in priEuiole. in ad-
mittiDR evidence Of his kind in CAGES at eohfraRf
Il is 3 prse'ical abandonment Of Shoea s,ie rules
which 20 to exclude remote dsnsgss AaotEe-rss
sou why speculative estimates OF pas 6s- win not be
sloweS s that il is not proper 10 admit Witnesses
to test fy their opinion sto the amount o. dam
age which the plsinuf has sustained ia their loss
or q, priveicn. Taey can on'J testify 10 fscts
Sedgs.c 569 59l. AID 20 permit . Wltnesst
testify ~ to shas mercantile hOuse oEgAs 70 hase
made upon q giVtn csptIl-iR Cr1er ~ reach an
ticiPaIed pr sis even more o. eciIo' able. Hers
MeWhuter n me offer Of C0ssett aud Hiil-pas 70
shsre only in the prof .. He was TO take noae Of
the eapstGJ Twas uae=risIn whether they WoCld
aH sgr'e upoH The X north pfO6st, n, 20 form The
partnership. and tbs n Ii dIssolVsole ~ death,
or BY action Of eilher Of tIe parties n thnty dys
TINE, aud the good fOrtGoe Of ihs house in is
sse;essive schems Of lnTeslmt7, sale aud rs-invesI
men', Wss q ! to rick. Has thea c d the rule Of
oHee pc to MsNaIr er. IN es- fx ~ him sad
DOueias-be anything but cor jec ursig IL may
'urn out' tnetefore, from the very Ba ure Of the
sOnI'aSs use mat 40 part Of the PLAN, el,
Ioe d'n ages pres 90 accuracy caanOl BE- stsised,
By legal proof
we csnn0t see that this contract is ILLEGAL as
ing IN r susint OF rad, immoral. or against
pa6lI; policy; or that in i Q enfoFsem nj n n
st 9 ! Recesssry TO Exercise aby pSE,r violanVe
Of 'he private highs Of the N-mnhi. hoDss.
which may lead 10 500 isl dsiurbs and hr,aahes
Of toe peac certainly our eoostTuo,en of ~
1t does not q sssrIy 81 leiIbel he frsI,n0so in
ieresIs Of the members Of hat Grm or exo'..,h,u
10 libel rdicule. eVea If sse an Of -etios, wber
evrr qH siioR AIRES u on real n,t,sr II rieht.
were vslId We cam II suppose thai III il dvsIte-!
taey become material, have eeeR il egaI or inn roo
This is not, primo pie Ike toe are Of pa.
Costa vs. jones, Copper. 729 t. Whi,h couusel
refer Us. l. is n0t Contract srIly and in
pertintny gotten up, out of the " business
and trsde, WsIt bly 70 expose the private Affairs
OF the N, mphs house A contract mus. plainly
appear TO be Illegal before We can so prOnounce-
Mr.. Cuity, in his work on Contracts, 2l7, says: A
doubtful matter Of public policy is not sscisnt to
invslidste contTscr. An agreement il net void
on this ground. urless it expressly sud M ques-
tiouably cOntrsveuel ublic Toey, and be Injurious
beyond all d, ubi, TO the inIeres IF the State
how far the members CT The ffn 81 Memphis
may be protected from answering particular inter
rogatorles relevant aud material the issue in this
cause, that may be propoundsd to them, We n, ed
not now decide, as We cannot that il is REQUISITE
that We should do 50, and special question Of the
kind has been raised, or argued before W. Il Is
enough to dispose Of such questions a. thew sGise
The result is the judgment Of the Creuis Court
must be reversed and new trial awarded
WRIGEr.
correct copy: J. P. CLARK, Clerk