The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1867-02-07

- --r~~
been repeatedly recognized by this court
Wooten VS. Miller, "a 3. q N. and Koontz VS..
Price and Dickson at last term.
This case appears to come fully within
these principles. The contract here was
founded on new consideration, not connect
ed with the alleged original and Illegal act,
and between new parties. No ingredient
of an illegal nature is shown except that It
was founded on the notes illegally issued, as
lis assumed, but with which the plaintiff had
no connection. He merely received the sub
ject of the illegal act for valuable consid-
Grafton and in tho course of his lawful bust
ness, without any connection on his part,
with act of the illegal Issue. This ap-
pears to be analogous to the case put by the
learned judge in the case OF Toler VS.. Arm
strong, of retail merchant who buys goods
from the illegal importer, or of any other
person who subsequently acquires right to
them and POUNDS contract on them.
1t is urged, that the plaintiff was bound
to know that the notes were issued in aid of
the rebellion and were void, and that he
must be presumed in law to have known
their illegality. But that does not vitiate
his contracts founded on them-Athere being
no law prohibiting their circulation-if his
contract was upon o new consideration and
he was not connected with the alleged orig
inal illegal act. And this is distinctly held
by both of the learned judges in the case of
Toler VS.. Armstrong.
The case of Kenneth VS.. Chambers, IA How.
u. S. relied on in behalf Of the plaintiffs in
error, is not in conflict with the principle above
stated, and is not in point; for that was suit
to enforce an illegal contract by the party who
had done the original illegal act.
IS Again 1t is insisted that the notes in this
case stand upon the same footing as counter
felt notes and are to be governed by the same
principle.
But the distinction is very manifest. Coun-
terfeit notes are founded wholly in fraud, and
are entitled to no credit or value. 1t is the de-
ception alone that causes them to pass, and
they are of no value, either intrinsically or in
the market, by consent founded on knowl-
edge of their true character. But notes issued
by existing corporations, and which are what
they pur1pOrt on their face to be, and are re-
cOgnized in the market as money, have a value
in fact, which gives them the character of mo-
nGy though they may afterward prove to be una
valuable. This distinctionisrecogni in many
cases, in which it has been held, that pay
ment in the notes Of a Bank, supposed by both
parties to be of specie value at the time, but
which were deprecated in consequence of the
failure Of the bank to redeem its issues-which
fact was unknown to the parties at the time of
payment-was d valid payment. Scruggs VS..
Gass, 8 Yerger, 175; Bayard VS.. Skunk. 1
Watts, 8 Sergt 80. LoWreyvs Murrell, 2 Por-
ter, $50.
From the foregoing views, we are of opinion
that there is no error in the action of the court
below upon the instructions under considera-
ton. H3
In coming to this conclusion we cannot
disregard the fact that vast amount of the
rights and property of our citizens depends
on contracts founded on considerations like
that of the case before us; nor can we over
look the circumstances under which such
contracts were made. The currency on
which they were founded, was, for upwards
offour years, almost exclusively the cireula-
ting medium of the country-issued by Gov
ernments having, in fact, complete power
over the people, and exercising undisturbed
political functions. 1t was the representa-
tive of their rights and property in all pecu-
mary tranactlons of private character,
and was, at the time, valuable and convert
able into gold or silver to n considerable
value. 1t answered all the purposes of
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 received it con-
tracts ofthe highest obligation were entered
into, in consideration of it, and by it, food
and clothing and other absolute neeessaries
We're obtained. 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.
The next objection raised to the rulings
of the Court is that the Mississippi Treasu-
~ notes were bills 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 lawful considera-
tion for the contract sued on. This objec-
ton is based on the authority of Craig VS.
State of Missouri, Peters.
fit 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 it, in the peculiar circumstances
of its condition at the time, yet it is clear
that these notes are not embraced within the
prohibition of that Constitution. ~
They We're issued under the ordinance of
of the State Convention of 26th January,
1861, which authorized them to be issued
solely on loan of money to the State, and
as evidence to the individual of the indebt-
edness of the State for the loan. They were |
not authorized to be issued as a circulating |
and that was not the policy con-
templated by the measure. That they were |
used among the people in part for that pur-
pose, after they were issued, 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 Consti-
tuition. 1t is there held, that contract ex-
ecuted bya State by which she binds herself |
to pay money at future day for services ae- |
tually rendered. OF for money borrowed for
present use, is not a bill of credit within the
meaning of the Constitution, Peters 431-2.
And it is clear that these notes were author
lied to be issued for money borrowed, by the
State for present use, and for no other pur-
pose.
a question appears to have been raised |
in the court below as to the validity of the
notes referred to as cotton money!" issued
by this State, and as to the right and power
of'the State to issue them. But that ques-
ton has been waived by the counsel for the
plaintiffs in error here; and nothing we
have said above is to be considered as an in
timat1en of an opinion on that point.
The last ground of error insisted on, is the
stxth instruction given by the court, at the in-
stance Of the plaintiff.
This instruction, asit appears III the record, /
IS nnint1 Eligible. and some of the words of it
would appear TO have been omi ted in tram
seribing it As stated in the record, 1t declares
no rule which could have misled the jury or /
worked to the defendants prejudice. We can
not, therefore, determine whether the instruc /
lion as given was correct or not
But, as well rs we are able to understand 1t, !
it appears TO be inlmaterial, when considered |
with reference to the facts of the case and the |
verdict of the jury, under the view we have
taken sef the leading features of the case; and
t could not have worked TO the prejudice of +
The defendants.
AS stated by counsel. IL had reference to GER
ain accounts OF the plaintiff against the de-
endants scvcrally as well as jointly, which the