Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-01-17
IMPORTANT DECISION.
of Exeoutory Contracts
Affirmed by the supreme Court
... of Mississippi.

A most important decision was rehuereu
yesterday by our high court of Errors
and Appeals in the case of ]. and I.
GREEN VS.. JAMES s. STEER, in which the
legality OF executory contracts where
Confederate notes, cotton money and
State treasury notes we're the considera-
ton, is affirmed, and the judgment of the
Circuit Court OF Kinds thus sustained.
Its great length prevents its publication
in full for few days. The following
extracts will indicate its purport:
"In coming to this conclusion we can
not disregard the fact that vast amount
of the rights and property Of our citizens
depends on contracts founded on consid-
creations like that of the case before us;
nor can we overlook the circumstances
nnder which such contracts were made.
The currency on which they were founded
was. for upwards of four years, almost
exclusively the circulating medium of
the country issued by governments
having, in fact, complete power over the
people, and exercising undisturbed polit-
zeal functions. 1t was the representa-
tive of their rights and property
in all pecuniary transactions of
priyate character, and was, at the
time. valuable and convertible into
cold or silver coin to a considerable
value. 1t answered all the purposes of
n circulating medium among the people,
and immense interests were acquired by
means Of it, under circumstances of the
greatest good faith by both parties, and
Of large profit to the parties who re-
ceived it contracts of the highest obli-
sation were entered into, in considera-
ton of it, and by it, food and clothing
and other absolute necessaries were OBJ
tanned. Under such circumstances, to
hold that such contracts we're 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.
rulings of the Court is that the Missis-
sippi Treasury notes were bis OF credit.
and void under section 10 of 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 consideration for the
contract sued on. This objection is
based on the authority of Craig vs., Pc
| tsrs.
"If it be conceded that, at TIE 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 it, in the pecu-
| liar circumstances of its condition at the
time, yet it is clear that these notes are
not embraced within the prohibition Of
that Constitution.
!'They were Issued under the ordi-
nance Of the State Convention of the
26th of January, 1861, which authorized
them to be issued solely on loan Of
money to the State, and as evidence to
the individual of the Indebtedness of the
State for the loan. They were not au-
thorized to be issued as Q circulating
medium, and that was not the policy con-
templated by the measure. That they
were used among the people in part for
that purpose, is true; but it is manifest
from the ordinance that such was not
the purpose for which they were au-
thorized. They were not intended to be
loaned or emitted as currency, but
we're given out to persons who loaned
money to the State; and that is expressly
decided, in the case of Craig VS.. the
State Of Missouri, not to be within the
prohibition of the Constitution. 1t is
there held, that a contract executed by a
State by which she binds herself to pay
money at future day for services actu-
ally rendered, or for money borrowed for
present use, is not bill Of credit within
| The meaning ofthe Constitution, Peters
1862. And 1t is clear that these noIeg
were authorized to be issued for money
borrowed by the State for present use,
and for no other purpose.
"A question appears to have been
raised in the court below as to the va
lidity of the notes referred to as " cotton
money" issBed by this State, and ss TO
the right and power Of the State to Issue
them. But that question has been waived
by The counsel for the plaintiff s in error
here and nothing we have said above is
to be considered as an intimation Of an
opinion on that point
The decision was rendered by Judge
Handy, and ccaegrred in by Judge Eli
EFT Judge Harris submitted an opinion
dissenting from some points and con-
curing in others. Both will shortly ap.
pear at length.