The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1867-02-06
Contracts made in Confederate Money
Important Decision Of Chancellor Le-

We pnbflSls below, in full, the taA~is-
ION OF Cts, acrNor Lrsesnc ias che case of
Jacksos es lazarus, which establishes
precedent in this Stale for all cases
inyoEvimg the paynacnt ofdcb's or obi.
cations in'ConIcdcratc currency. 1t will
be seen that the principle is hell that
dcbts contracted i'll Confederate curren-
cy must be discharged Oh The basis Of the
value OF hat currency as cotaltarcd viii,
gold, ut the time the debt WAS incurred,
and consideration given thereof:
Ehri'1I Jackson Adm'or of Wm. J Pal.
mer, deceased, IS. Edgar NJ. Lazarus
and another.
.clfARLESroN-lN CHAMBERS.
Un'thc twelfth day Of March, eighteen
hondred and sixty three (lSG3), the dc
E:adant borrowed srom the plaintiffs five
thousand dollars (5000C in Confederate
notes, and to secure the loan, gaye their
bond conditioned for Tic payment or ,hnt
sum, on or before the twelfth day or
March, eighteen hundred and aud 81 ,ty.
eight ('SGs( with interest ut the rate
ofscvrn per cent. per nnnum, payable
annually, and a mortgage Of house and
lot ir ll'c City Of Charleston.
The defendants arc tho solo lrratccs
"fJoshaa lazarus, dcceuscd, and arc so
designated in the bonl and mortgage.
In negotiating Tor the loan, 1t was men.
toned that they desired money to pay
debts OF the ttsLator and It was applied
10 tho payment OF two OF his debts,
which existed before the wnr. No pay.
mcmt having been made on the bond, Of
interest or principal, This bill was fled
ior foreclosure Of the mnr,gRgc. The
contract in tins case having been mado
ebctwccr the first day Of JANUARY, cigh-
teen hundred and sixly-lwo (lsG2) and
Tie fifteenth day Of May, eighteen hun.
drcd asd siNtyfvc QsG5), is subject to
tho operation Of all ordinance Of the Con.
vcnton OF tnls State, dated eighteen
hundred aud sixtv-livo QSG5), wherein
it was provided. 'la, in every action in
rlly contract made between those dates
testimony may be introduced to show
tho true VALUE and real character Of The
consideration Of such contract at the
time it was made, 50 that regard beng
had to the particular circumstances Of
each case, such verdict or decree nav
he rendered MS will effect substantial JUS
,lcc between tho parties. The question:
therefore, to be decided is, what was the
true value Of the consideration Of tho
contract in this case, at its date, regard
being had to its particular clrcumstan.
ccs?
The consideration OF q contract IS dc
fined to signifv the ruusc OF The contract
and Is distinguished from tho motive
which induces to IL tSmiM "n C"ui,act<,
lGo (A.) In Thomas u.s. Thomas. 42
Eny. G. l.. Rep, 9i5, this definition is
adopted, and Patterson, j., says "Mo-
tive is not the same thing with consider.
alton, consideration means something
w,ich is Of somn value in tho eye Of tho
law, mortng f'o0, the pltinhW 1t may
be some benefit to tho defendant, or
some dctrmcnt to tho plaintiff, but ut
all events It must be moring .t;om tic
y,"mGH"
In tho case in hand, tho purpose for
which these defendants desired the money
TO wit: payment OF certain debts, en-
planned their motive for entering INTO tho
contract, but is quito imma,crial in de-
,crmiring what was its consideration.
1t WAS not a Thing mo"ing FROM III,
pMnNf, but from tho defendants them.
selves, and it is plain their liability would
have been the same, whether they had
adhered TO their purpose or not. The
true consideration, nr raluubkr Mtng mov
sng from the plaintiff, in this case, was
tho money loaned by lin. And oul
question resolves itself ipto this, wha,
was the value Of five thousand ($5000)
IN Confederate notes on the twelfth N2'
day of March,, cigtcrn hundred md six
" three (lSG3)? Tho plaintiff insists
TINT Tins value mus. be measured by the
benefit which The borrower actually re-
crived from tho money; and inasmucl
as the whole sum was applied to The cx
tinguishment Of debts that were liabl,
to be paid in coin. the said sum, in coin
constitutes Tho value, ard the dc(e,danls
resnot entitled TO any deduction from
tho face OF their bond. 1Mls proposition
seems (in The language OF the ordinance
to meet tho substantial Justice Of the
prescnt'casc bnt think it rather ,.spc
cious than sound. In the first place, i
it's not certain that tho debts eXin
gu'sllcd were really worth their ,lmoun
in coin, aud that tho defendants were
thereby bcucftted to that extent But
conccding that, still according 80 thi.
rronosilionrl,e value Of loans Of none,
made during hcperio,l mcntio,cd, wonl,
ia 'cacb case be effected oy the good for
tune or:ho good Judgment orthc Dor
rover. ialhe us, mndc of it.; so that i
might happen that two loans Of lik,
amounts made simultaneously, to th,
samapcrson, would he differently valuct
that willie ono oflh leaders wonl,
receive one hundred per cent in pay
ncnt OF lis claim, the other woall re-
ccive only City rcr cent. or less 1t vii
not.b6 disputed that III the case suppos
cd, the two loans mnsl be Of cqual vain,
aud conscqnentiy,a proposition Which
rests OH the denial Of tl,ai, cannot bt
maintained = N~