Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-10-04
CIrcuif 1,nurf

This court met at 81 o'clock, Judge M.
NJ. Brien presiding. The following order
of Judge Brien was read
1t is ordered by the court, that hereafter
no person or persons, by him or them or
his or their attorney, shall be permitted to
take from the Clerks Office of this the Cir
cult Court for Davidson county, Tenn, any
paper or papers in cause or suit in said
Circuit Court; any person or persons vio-
lating this order will be considered in con
tempt of court, and that the Clerk il in
structed to enforce this order.
In the case of Mizell rs. Scales, the jury
brought in verdict for the defendant.
Hessey rs. Buchanan, was the first busi>
ness before the court. 1t was a suit upon
a note given for horse. Man sold the
horse to HOLSTER, and Buchanan was
security; Man endorsed the note 10 Hessey.
The defense against the note was, that Man
knew when he sold the horse that it was to
be used in the Confederate army, and for
that reason took $l2 less than the price he
asked.
The Judge charged the jury that if Man
knew the horse was to be used in the Rebel
army, then the note was given for an illegal
consideration, and there could be no re-
covery on it. Verdict for defendant.
Burdett Ashton Lewis Ell ais, rs. Wood
folk. This is a suit upon promisscry notes
to the amount of 1922, 900, given January
10th, 1860, for ninety-eight slaves, plan
tation and farming utensils in Louisiana.
The defendant answered the plaintiffs
declaration with twenty-five pleas, and the
case now comes before the court upon a
demurrer to three of the pleas. The points
brought out in the argument for the de-
tense were:
First, That this contract was made in
Louisiana, and that the ler loci cOntrdcius
governs the contract.
Second, That the Supreme Court Of
Louisiana in Wainwright as. Bridges, de-
clared the law of the State to be, that the
obligation to pay for negroes purchased
ceased with the right of the property.
Third, That whether this decision is cor
rect or not, is immaterial here that it is the
law of Louisiana and governs this contract,
and by its operation annuls the contract,
so far as the ninety-eight slaves are con-
cerned; and this being an entire contract,
when part is broken the defendant is not
bound on any of it.
The plaintiff claims, first, that the de-
cision relied on by the defendant was in its
nature en- post facto, and consequently un-
constitutional; second, that the clause in
the constitution of Louisiana to which this
decision refers is copied from the constitu-
ton of the United States, and that we are
not bound by Louisiana construction of the
United States constitution, and that in all
the other States where this question has
been adiudicated, the decision has been
Just the other way; third, that the Ier loci
contrdctus has its force only by the comfy
of nations-that it will not be allowed to
control when it is prejudicial to the rights
of the Commonwealth or its citizens or
when it is in direct violation of local law,
as in this Case Cold, SOC.
The demurrer was sustained. The case
will be tried on the pleas not overthrown
| by the demurrer.
Court adjourned until 81 this morning.