New-York tribune., 1867-04-30
CTVTL'COURTS.
SUPREME COURT-CIRcUfr APRIL 29-Bef0ro Mr'
Justice NOAH DAVIS

Justice NOAH DAVIS.
TIE VALIDITY or PAYMENTS or DIVIDENDS IN cox
FFpERATE MONEY OR BOND5-AN IMPORTANT DE-
wn II ss hs Central Railroad aui Banking Company Of
Plaintiff ns assignee hdlds 81 shares N defendants
nv declared regular halfyeuy divldends the aggregate
amount OF which, plaHttfs stock was $40 The az
signee OF this stock fesdent OF this city Suit i
The defeusc was OF twotod Character FIRST that no
suCient legal demand had been made by plaintiffs sec
Ond that defendants rtady aid always nave beep
II seems there have been Seven dividends in all The
Board of Directors OF the Company passed resolution 70
tbr effect that tbe last tyo OF these dividends should DO
paid IN Confederate money bonds. No special actioh
taken in relation 20 tlq lrss tye ddSldohuS'
In respect the dividends declared in 1861 they were
dyidenas general in their terms, OF so much money
IL appears In tho that the bank during that year
received the currency OF thE state fhe point nade Us
yond tho present value OF the currency of that state.
principle upon W which nc & s1s and SE% s the
equities among ITS STOCKHOLDERS by showing that IN point
Of fact had not made the Pres out q oSnoa %C 70 an
to recover dividends which have been declared by IL ny
suit at law when IN iset as recsyed ss s S"s q those
dividends as money something that turns OUT not 10 po
fbo cGuifies Of its stockholders bya direct pro-
ceeding for that purpose II one OF the banks OF TINS
earuju for te past six months. and should then dis
cover that il had received an immense amount OF coun
bases o The dividend declared should imagine 1t would
never answer for the bank whom suit was brought at
law for fbc dividend set that fact up AZ defense
against the payment OF the dlvidOnd, although could
conceive that IL might resort to equity to bring IN all is
stockhodes and adjust the equities between them 50 ~
to relieve itself from portion Of the alys ah,s
dend which u had mistakenly declared, Lh,s
bank in question: in 1861. declared general d,vlaenu.
payable not in any specific FORM but particular ne
They bound 70 pay in legal @ & t n4e ht
what our Government declared TO he legal tender' pc
ca n s a sr% eyer existed at ali
We can only treat that Government as never IN TACT nav
ing any legal existence and Therefore we cannot take
into consideration that the bank acted as to those VINO
had received IFS divdings in view OF the act9n o' re
Animation which We must look at is that which the law
generally imposes, to wit; to pay those a'Ideus III wt
we recognize by law as legal tender ! thnk, there
fore If at that time lu 1861 the plaintiff had demanded
the dividends then declared and had brought All action
in the United States Court against the bank 10 seze lts
property belonging to 1t IN any part OF te County wner9
il could have held IT. the Court would not nave esltated
currency of The Unilcd States This bank had received
Confederate currency and had used IN MS Dnsnes ana
IL not pretended that had retained any scco Con
fcdcrae currency, any Confederate bills for the pur
nose OF meeting the dividends due 10 s stockhoides
ON he contrary must he assumed that III the ordinary
management OF It's business affairs as pahn, u %3na
use Confederate notes pay them out loan them holding
never TO keep any specific bills for any particular object
n did not divide specific things; it made tho dividends
pSsd PAYABLE monev IN money! %% Them although in fSrp il was
not money with and no Court sitting under our laws
dividends have no hesitation IN saying that the plaintiff
entitled to the amount OF his dividends pro
~
think different rule applies They mado payable nt
u time when the Confederate Government should pay
certain Indebtedness to the bank don't evidence
that that time has arrived and am strongly inclined 10
think 10 never will; but aside from that they are made
payable in Confederate money. Now this case is free
from any embarrassment which troubled the Court of APP
pcas in the other case. although Mr. Justice Wright IN
his opinon expressed the idea that the bank dividend in
that case payable In cash, yet the ease evidently
turned upon the point that the currency Of the State must
be regarded without any explanation as legal tender Inc
bank before made thete last dyidenus pay
able in Confederate money. Now, think H - the dny
Of the Court 10 into consideration and determine
what i. meant by those dividends. We must take into
the fact that Confederate money was cur
repcy issued by the Rebel Government which t declared
and force OF maintained IN that section or inc
country legal tender. As against ths bank, ana
against those subject the central Of It's military power
it could enforce while 1t had the physical power DO So
the operation OF that law and 1t did 30. We ought
to consider that fact therefore bearing upon the
question ef the rights that grew out OF the declara
tion st the dividends payable in Confederate money.
While am fully OF the opinion that my position - right
and that Court consider Confederate money aS
valid consideration for any promise or debt whatever
yet think that the Court must hold. when dividend II
declared in that special form, payable In Confederate
money either th8t dividend legally made at all
that is to say that the promise had validity at ALL
that il be regarded dividend which the party
must take declared not all SO. thuE, In respect
10 the dividends that the plaintiff is not entitled
10 recover they specifically payable in Con
federate money. Ny Judgment s therefore, that tho
plaintiff entitled to recover n To all the dividends. OK
ccpt last three. On the question of demand think
the evidence sufficient entilc the pantn tO recover
although n demand In sIch !, necessary; yet where
there evidence the case showing that the bank II
NOT ready TO comply with the demand and II declares
that II will only comply with II ia manner Nhch lS no
legal cOnplancethat IT, equivalent to waiver oi de-
mand. .,,, nj, , y.t.. -, -.
defendant