Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-01-23

and Tennessee.
The following decision in regard to Con
federate money has recently been made by
the High Court Of Appeals Of Mississippi
FROM the jackson Misissippian. Jan. II.
We give below the following abstract or
| conclusion Of the opinion Of the High
/ Court In the case of J. and T. Green u.s. j.
$. Sizer The opinion Of the Court was
delivered by Chief Justice Handy and il
will be seen sustains the judgment Of the
| Circuit Court Of Kinds county, affirming
the legality Of eEecutory contracts where
! Confederate notes, cotton money and State
treasury notes was the consideration
The following extract will indicate It's par
port:
On coming 90 this conclusion we cannot
disregard the fact that a vast amount Of
the rights and property Of our citizens de-
ponds on contracts founded on considera-
tions like that Of the case before us nor
can we overlook the circumstances under
which such contracts we're made. The cur
rency on which they were founded, was,
for upwards Of four years, almost exclu-
siyely the circulating medium Of the coun-
try--issued- by governments having com
plete power over the people, aud exercising
undisturbed political functions. ItWas the
| representatives Of their rights and proper
| ty in all pecuniary transactions Of private
character, and was at the time, valuable
and convertible into gold or silver coin to
a considerable value II answered all the
purposes Of circulating medium among
! the people and, Immense interests were ac-
a
Of the greatest good faith By both parties.
and Of large profit 20 the parties who re-
| ceiyed it; contracts Of the highest obliga-
tion were entered into, in consideration Of
IL, and by IL, food and clothing and other
absolute necessaries were obtained. I'm
der such circumstances, 10 hold that such
contracts were illegal and void and that
the parties acquired no legal rights under
them, would be alike contrary TO settled
rules Of law and to sound public policy.
The next objection raised to the rulings
Of the court is that the Mississippi treas
ury notes were bills Of credit, and void IN
der section 10 article ] Of the constitution
Of the United States, and to the extent OF
the amount Of them involved in this case
that they could not constitute a lawful con-
sideratiOn for the contract sued on. This
objection lie based on the authority Of Craig
vs.. Peters
of it be conceded that, at the time these
notes were issued, the constitution Of the
United States was in actual force in this
State, and that the powers Of this State
were governed by il, in the peculiar circum-
stances Of its condition vat the time. yet il
is clear that these notes are not embraced
"They were issued under the ordinance
Of the State Convention Of Goth January,
1861, which authorized them to be issued
solely on a loan Of money to the State, and
as evidence to the individual of the in
debtedness Of the State for the loan. They
were not authorized to be issued as a circu-
lating medium, and that was not the policy
contemplated by the measure. That they
were used among the people in part for
that purpose, after they were issued is true
but Il is manifest from the ordinance that
such was not the purpose for which they
were authorized. They were not intended
to be loaned OF emitted" as clr5rencL bat
were given out 10 persons who loaned
money TO the State; and that is expressly
decided, in the case of Craig VS.. the Stale
Of Missouri, not 10 be within the prohibi-
ton Of the constitution. II is there held
that contract executed by a State by
which she binds herself 10 pay money at a
future day for services actually rendered
or for money borrowed for present use, Is
not bill of credit within the meaning Of
| the constitution, Peters. And il il clear
that these notes were authorized to be ISSUED
/ for money borrowed by the State for present
use, and for no other purpose.
A question appears 10 have been RAISED
/ in the court below as to the validity Of tht
| notes referred to as cotton money" ISSUED
/ by this State, and as to the right and power
Of the State to issue them. But the cues
ton has been waived by the counsel for tn,
plaintiffs in error here; and nothing w
have said above ia 10 be considered as ar
intimation of an opinion on that point.
The Supreme Court of this State has re-
| Gently rendered a very important decision
in regard 10 contracts based in part, al
least, on Confederate money. The opinion
Of the courtwas deliveredhy Judge Shacllle
ford as follows:
This is a suit brought in the Circui
Court Of the county of White, on a note for
s., 400, executed, in September 1862, to thu
| defendant in error, due one day after date
| payable in currency. The declaration il
in the usual form, TO which five pleas wer,
filed by the plaintiffin error.
The FIRST and second pleas are not IN the
record. A demurrer was filed to the second
third and ftth pleas, which was allowed by
the court, and issue was taken on the fourth
plea, which set forth the consideration o
| the note, and AYERS that il was illegal. Tht
facts necessary TO be stated are, that the
defendant in error loaned to the plaintiff il
error -, 100 in Confederate treasury note
and $500 in Southern bank notes, for which
the plaintiff in error executed the note il
suit.
The cause was submitted to a jury, who
under the Instructions Of the court, rendered
a verdict for the defendant in error for tn,
value OF the Southern bank notes loaned
| A new trial was moved for, which was over
ruled, from which there was an appeal 4
this court. The principal question for ON
confederation arises upon the charge Of tn,
! Circuit Judge, who instructed the Jury. il
| substance: that If the consideration of IN,
note was Confederate treasury notes, ia,
| plaintiff in error could not recover, but /
part Of the consideration was Southern
bank notes or money, the plaintiff was en-
titled 20 recover 20 the value Of the Stat
bank currency at The time the note became
due. We think the charge is erroneous.
This court has held, in several cases, tina
a note the consideration of which was Con
lederate treasury notes, was illegal an,
void. The issuance of these notes was 70
an Illegal and unlawful purpose, and tn
courts Of the ccdntry would not lend thei
active aid 70 enforce their collection
/ A part Of the considerations being lega
1t is connected with the illegal considera
ton, that il cannot besepaFated from it an,
taints the whole transaction. In % Kent
Commentaries 46S, the principle is stated
where any matter void even by statute b
mixed up with good matter which /
/ entirely independent Of il, the good par
shall stand. and the resi- shall be void
though If the part which is good depend
upon that which is bad the whole insiru
ment is void, and the rule il, IL any part O
the consideration be Madam i8 se OF Ia
good and void consideration be so mike,
or the contract 80 entire that there can h
no apportionment, the whole is void
In the case of bearing as. Chapman, 22,
Maine, ass, il was held that all contract
made in violation Of law are nugatory, an,
that II note Of hand be founded in par
upon ouch consideration il is void in toto
The same principle was settled in the cas-
Of Barton and Wordsworth gS. the Por
Jackson and Union Falls Plaukroad Com
pany, az in Rarbour n. Y. reports, 397
The cour; SAYS where a contract grows on
? Of IL or ia connected with an illegal act 81
court viii not lend its active aid 70 eniorc
H. snd if it be- in fact connected with On
illegal transaction il is tainted with ia
b illegalitv of the transaction, from whenc