Brownlow's Knoxville Whig. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1866-1869, 1867-11-13
SUPREME COURT OPINION.
KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE, SEPTEMBER TERN, 1861
mepowr11, neeAUeuEY co. Va. knLLER.

MCDOWELL, MeGAUGHEY co. Va. KILLER.
On the 18th Of August 1866 Keller this in
error upon the following instrument.
"s47i7s One day after date promise to pay Samuel
Keller four hundred and seveEtyone dollars and seventy
min. cents a being 9 se6 notes seSa this Day in bank
The declaration is substantially in the concise form
DER which Il averred that the time when said
four hundred and seveHtyone dollars and sevenynne
Of tS suit tCW on the day Of December Isss the de-
BY a Ss sS a sn r fgep Sna
thereon, current bank notes. towit the Of s534O
Their AYERS that December 1862 the de-
PENDANTS deposited with George Jones' the Of 1854 90
terest thereon with directions pay plain
tn Whenever he would receive the same in payment Of said
note Of which the plaintiff then and there had que notice.
and that although said Jones has ever since held said sum
ready to pay said plaintiff yet the plaintiff has wholly failed
Tho defendants further in said plea that at the time
the plaintiff objections whatever to the current bank
rendered but simply declared that ne had no use for
Cour identical bank notes rendered and at all times
kept in readiness and willing to pay the said plaintiff the
full amount lawfully due upon said note"
The plaintiff took issue upon the first plea, and demurred
ist The Plea fails to aver the tender en-
day the instrument sued on fell due but does the tender
Cd The plea fails that the defendants always
ready from the dry when said instrument fell due to pay the
Other steps we're taken in making up the peadings the
the plaintiff to the plea Of BY the dsendAnt
allowed argument thereof and the defendants declining
pears the record Judgment by default was pronounce
th Court what damages the plaintiff had sustained Jury
was epannesd inquire thereof who rendered verdict
in the plaintiff for S6S6e principle and interest
note after deductng one per cent The defendants
trial. which refused and judgment
nouncsd upon the verdict which the defendants
have appealed in to this Court.
II is insisted the Court erred in allowing the demurrer
whilst it the other hand that the paper sued
is not note for money! and IN order 70 make the tender Of
have been made the day the instrument fell due.
These questions are not entirely ,ree from dSuty and
apparent conflict But by bearing in mind certain well de-
IA uromsse1y note may defined written agree
ment BY person pay another therein named alb
time specified therein. Story Prom. Notes. ch. l.
The same author CHI sec H. says; The instrument in
money and for the payment of money only And IN sec
to prossory that should be for the payment of
money specie therefore promise to pay certain of
England notes, is not good promssory note"
In Of Chdres Stewart it was held that note
payable in bank bills is not note for money Pecks Rep
In the case eff Lawrence vs. Doughery and Given sit was
held that note money which may be discharged
for the payment of money but property" Yer
In the case of Gamble Halten and whye it held
that in action on note for seq 90 in current bank notes.
the current bank notes would be as much gold and silver as
due and that current bank notes do not mean gold and sill
yer. Peck's Rep. 100
payable in current bank notes is not note for money
In whtsnau VS. childress il was held that note for the
payment Of 1920 IN enrIat en notes Of Tenresses nes
In crutchHeld ys. Robins, Tingey Co.. it insisted
that bank notes are not money and That nothing Is bat that
ton Of United States but Judge Turley in delivering the
h generic term and everything which by
represent property as passes as such currently from
OF the African gold and silver Of the world, the paper
Of modern Europe and America $1,000,
| hapk hds
both in Europe and United States be good and legal
fender PAYMENT Of debts It objected upon
Trouad that It mot gold and silver. 9TH Hum Is.
In that case it sought to set aside payment made in
current Of the State Of Tennessee by Judgment
debtor TO the CLERK Court in satisfaction of judgment
and held the receipt BY such officer Of current bank
IL discharge Judgment unless it be objected
before it's reception and the principles of that after
wards s5.s A. AZ the ssns term 9Th Hum 49,
The case Of Hopson Fountain 9th Hum 40 was al &C
nromed to pay Fountain ninety days after date
bank money Of the State Of Mississippi the sum Of Ss9
proye the yaue Mississippi bank notes at the time the in
srument ~ hd t e nrS that the Criterion of damage
was the nanber Of dollars specified in the instrument with
interest thereon the word had technical legal
meaning sgnfying dollars and cents of constitutional
Tsncy tow gold and silver But this Court said 1--WE
consent the correctness OF the definition Of the word
money generic term embracing according to the sub
eot mater o. idsT. ruiness napeIeons eagles and bank
notes well dollars and it was held the measure Of dam
ag was the value current Mississippi bank notes where
the payable and the Judgment of the Circuit
| Court reversed
offoveuant upon an by which Baker promised
one day date to pay to Jordan s227 in current Ten
% dpdsnts pleaded covenants performed OF the trial
the pIanti read the covenant and this the only
So1se in the cause The jury found the plaintiff S. no.
"a and insisted in this Court that the plaintiff was en-
titled nominal damages only because he dd not prove the
value of bank notes at the time the covenant
Judge Green in delivering the opinion of Court, said
sThe words bank notes that which circulate
& ~ is Presumed to be of value equal to money
nina faea it such value and if defendant in such
stodnoe proof to show that it is of less value"
In the of crutchhsd vs. Robins Ingey CO.. before
Of contracts 70 y 50 many dollars o. Is1ne.see bank
This class Of cases are sui @ have been determined
upon their peculiar circumstances they are contracts
with view to depreciation Of the paper they are not
many of that particular KIND oil money and IN TINS respect
stand upon the footing contracts to pay
%qsn Of ruse the Value of which Unknown depend
ing upon the rate of exchange ana usage;
them damages and so the contract to pay bank
netes @ money and in a. much as il may Be worth
less than the standard dollar which IL intended 20 repre-
sent Il is to scaled and therefore the action sounds in
damages and debt viii lie AID legal consequence il
Is mot . contract for the payment Of money in GEneo
r. ,tiIi later case this Court said speaking of bank
y almost universal consent has become the me
exchange and ons and regarded :.
new This hcweser, is by consent and not by law Ware
vs. wssws 1s chIdress 9Th Sos, before referred
TO- il said why note payable in current bank
net for payment Of money in specie that Is Tor me pay
money generally without nmSo1 n 81 yo g s
~ these nav now be added legal tender, United States Treas
ury notes they having also been made legal tender or e
sways Seen held that the tender bank
- Ia nj affected 10 ground not because they may
a. GOOD as scId and silver legal tender treasury notes
but because BY almost Unanimous consent .sy hs,s .
and are regarded money and no objection being made up
the ground they are bans mote se rrpy and is
waiver objection % to the currency tesassa Is 2ps
rsoes on Con I5s l, ID Greensaf on EE sec sV
common Law tender must 10 all cases be maze en- me G
IsShis contract being ee late and therefore no.
in bar of the aeon But when NE s i mn nos An,
e io ~ not been demanded amends ere 70 Be Of
sed for an mt z I'm assed sufficient to supper
: the plea Of tender. ID Sreenisai Gu ~ seS' W. -
n sens however that statutes and assses q ca
States generally permit Es tender Y % bsssbt anS i
some Il may be Esde AFTER the setien s brougst
~ tIs ers he action i brought and when depand
Of money, and definite IN amount or = espas q e
: y when the is for auiquidatcd damages &c invo
admissible but in this country cases o by
extension Of the principle Of the LIST 5as ~ lss is9
press sss .e.s We si Prerso"
clearly dedneib.s a !. t,s.<ass note for "onsl
ls rSs t nsts sa "a psr,cssf klna q Money =
%. IN naeh as u s. - lsssciatien be worth les
: h a. q issr which i i inisnsea g 49,
y se h money generally, ouly the value
4 go n. - rrrnf bank notes.
IA Tne amoEnt e yhich the psihn ses -,
Il hseeca 81 contract was not Only =, ~ ~
4, ii tiae made Definite and IN eonseaes ~
n contrsct the defendant was II mofa thei7'''e ~ ~
4. | asfnissibe after the BREACH -, - -. a. baa
Itsfollews therecre, the plea Of ~ s5 80 ,,
e and the plaintiffs demarreI thete'o y w" '
8, | be allowed. ~. - > N s,,t..r,art ureree,f
" ipes t,sr,5n was erroneous Tbs defendant nae he w
y rses ana amen ~ erst tie plaintiff had taken issue
Tue DESCENDANTS are therefore not IN eslas' ana ' ~
g tia was not entitled judgment By aeisalt. ,
A tfue ce1y y. ans 'ss"s. HAWKES..
/ Test. jude
] ~, T.. PtrqFEsas clerk