Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-06-26
Southern Confiscated Debts.

Chief Justice Chase thus states the case
of Shortridge & Co., of Philadelphia, Us.
Macon, on which he delivered an opinion
and made decision in the circuit of North
Carolina on Monday last: T
This is all action for the recovery, OF the
amount of promissory note with interest.
There is no question of the liability of the
defendant to the demand of the plaintiffs,
unless he is excused by coerced payment,
of the note sued upon under the act of tie
self styled Confederate Congress, passed
August Both, 1861, entitled an act for the
stquestration of the estates of alien enem-
les; and an amendatory act passed Febru-
ary 18Th, 1862. 1t is admitted that the
plaintItfs were citizens of Pennsylvania !;
that defendant was Il citizen of North Car
olina; that the note sued upon was made
by the defendant to the plaintiffs, and that
the defendant was compelled by proceedings
instituted in the courts of the so-called
Contederates States to pay the amount due
upon iG to the receiver appointed under the
sequestration acts. Upon these facts it is
insisted that the defendant is discharged
from his liability to the plaintiffs. 1t is
claimed that while iteXisted the Conteder-
ate Government was de fdcto Government !;
that the citizens of States which did not
recognize its authority were aliens, and in
time of war alien enemies; that conse-
quently the acts of sequestration were valid
acts, and, therefore, that any payment to a
COnlcueIdIe dRen6 Ol ueDIS Que 10 SUCH
citizens, compelled by proceedings under
those acts, relieved the debtors from all
obligation to the original creditors"
| He closes as follows: -1i Ff
I'VE hold, therefore, that compulsory
payment, under the sequestratiOn acts, to
the Rebel receiver of the debt due to the
defendant was no discharge. 1t is claimed,
however, that. whatever may be the right
of the plaintiffs to recover the principal
| debt from the defendant, they cannot re-
cover interest for the time during which
| was prevented all communication between
| the States in which they respectively re-
side. We cannot think so. Interest is the
lawful fruit of principal. There are, in
deed, some authorities to the point that the
interest which accrued during war between
| independent nations cannot be afterward
recoVered-though the debt, with other in
| terest, may be. But this rule, in our judg-
ment, is applicable, only to such wars. Nor
do we perceive anything in the act of the
18th of July, 1861, which suspended for a
| time all Intercourse between the loyal and
insurgent portions of the country, that
warrants its application to the case before
us. Legal tights could neither be Originate
ed nor defeated by the action of the central
authorities of the late rebellion. The
plaintiff must have Judgment for the princi-
| pal and interest of his debt without deduc-
| tion." 1.l E..f .-.r
| This is the first decision on the main
question to which it relates that has been
made by the Supreme Court since the re-
two decisions, one in Maryland and one in
/ Virginia, against the allowance of interest
during the rebellion, have been given. The
decision is of great Importance to parties in
! the North who have debtors in the late
Rebel States.