Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-12-08

N der the Rebel authority. Jan " DE mar
tanned that her right to the dividend
upon her stock was defeated by thes
transactions We think not. We can
not regard the Confederate government
as a de fdctO government ia any sue
|, sense that its acts are entitled TO judicia
recognition as valid. On the contrary
we are obliged to regard it as a combi
nation or unlawful conlederacy organized
for the overthrow of the national govern
ment, and its acts, for the -confscation OF
sequestration Of the private property o
the citizens of the United States, as null
and of no effect. The appointment of the
Receiver, the sale of the stock, the pay
ment of the dividends, must all be re-
garded as part Of the process of seques-
tration or tonfscation, and all as equally
void. But it is said, admitting the char
acter Of the Confederate government, in
view Of the law, to be such as has been
stated, that the company was compelled
to pay the dividends to the parties who
received them, and by this compulsory
payment was discharged ofrcsponsibility
to the lawful proprietor Of the stock.
This proposition asserts the exemption
of the company from liability on the
principle of us major; that there can
be no responsibility where the loss is oe-
casioned by irresistible force. And it may
be admitted that if the dividends belong
ing to Mrs. Keppell had been set apart
to her specially, and the money thus set
apart had been taken from the officers of
ho rs-,Ahark m thar
part, by the application of force, either
actual or menaced, under circumstances
amounting to duress, the loss must have
been borne by her. After such appro-
priations Of dividends, the company
would have become, perhaps, the bailee
Of the stakeholder for her proportion, and
an excuse which would avail a carrier
for hire for non-delivery, might excuse
the company for non-payment. But we
cannot agree that this rule is fairly appli-
cable to this case. 1t does net appear
that there was any setting apart Of divi>
dendS, or that any force was actually
urged or threatened. On the contrary,
the action of the company in employing
their railroad in the employment Of the
Confederate government, and the alb
sence Of any protest on the part Of its
officers against the unlawful payment Of
dividends, afford q reasonable inference
that they were Involuntary accessories
to the whole action Of that government.
No reasonable application Of the principle
relied upon, therefore, will excuse the
company from its liability to its stock
holders. And public policy clearly re-
quires the protection of stockholders in
the loyal States from any application Of
this principle,,no clearly demanded by the
law. Mrs. Keppell was deprived of
the immediate security, afforded to
her rights by the national govern
ment by the rebellion. 1t is the
duty Of that government, since that re-
belhon is suppressed, to afford her, as far
as practicable, ultimate security. On the
other hand, it is the obvious dictate of
sound policy that no encouragement
should be given to rebellion by relieving
parties within Rebel control Of private
responsibilities, except in very clear
cases Of compulsory force, without their
direct or indirect consent. We think the
second claim Of the company as to pay
ment in Confederate notes equally unJen-
able. The liability of the company to
Mrs. heppell for each dividend accrued
when it was declared. At that moment
the company became debtor and the
creditor for the amount 1t
may have been the fault of neither that
payment was not then made. 1t was not,
certainly, the fault of the stakeholder. 1t
is no excuse to the company that the par
ticular currency in which its income was
received, and in which its dividends were
paid to the stockholders, has since become
worthless. The dividends were declared
in dollars. The debt created by the divi-
dend to the stakeholder was due in dol
lars. And in dollars only can it now be
discharged. But we are not morelI
ready to say that it must now
be discharged by dollars Of greater
value than those in which it was
charged by dollars Of no value at all
At the time several of the dividends
were declared, the chief currency, and
when the others were declared, almost
the entire currency Of that part Of the
country in which the railroad was oper
ated, was in Confederate notes and
whatever currency of bank notes there
may have been in circulation, was Of no
greater real value. This currency may
fairly be said to have been imposed on
the country by irresistible force. There
was no other in which the current daily
transactions Of business could be carried
on, and there could be no other while the
rebel government kept control Ct the
rebel States. The necessity for using
this currency was almost Ahe same as
the necessity to live. No protest no re-
sistance, no rejection could avail any
thing. At the same time this currency,
though it deprecated rapidly, had sort
Of value. Its redemption, though i'm
probable was not impossible, and, until
the downfall of the Confederacy, it had
greater or less degree Of purchasing
power. Under these circumstances, we
cannot refuse to take notice of the fact
that the dollars which the company re-
ceived were not Of either description of
dollars recognized as lawful money by
the the laws of the United States nor
can we hold the officers Of the company
as mourning any liability to the stock
holders ty receiving the currency actu-
ally in circulation for its earnings,
beyond that of prompt payment in
like currency TO such stockholders
as were in a situation to receive
such payment, and payment as
soon as practicable in currency of
equivalent value to such as were residen
in States intercourse with which was, at
the time, not only cut off by the civil war,
but was also interdicted by the Congress
of the United States. In the case Of
Shortridge VS.. Macon, it was held that
the accrual of interest upon a note for a
certain sum and interest was not suspen-
ded by the rebellion. The dividends, in
the present case, are in different predica-
ment. Dividends are only payable on
demand, and it is agreed in this case that
there was no demand until the filing OF
the bill Interest, therefore, can only be
allowed from that date. We shall decree,
therefore, that the respondents pay
to the compliments the dividends
declared upon the stock Of their intestate,
with interest from November %, 1866.
The amount of the several dividends, at
the several dates when made, will be
computed by dcductng such percentage
as will reduce them to equal value IN
lawful money, and interest on the aggre-
gate amount will be cast from November
%. 1866, to this date, at six per cent.
and a decree will be entered for the sum
thus ascertained. Thecomputations may