The democrat. [volume] (Weston, W. Va.) 1868-1874, 1869-04-05

tlue was w NopHbN'ute uotcs' ! Hc VA
was filed 10 the District Court f the
! Middle District Of Alabama, Judge Bus
tccd presiding. The bill did not assert
the contact lobe illegal, but the Court
50 regarded it, the evidence having devel-
opcd the fact that the contract could be
discharged in Confederate notes.
''From this decree appeal was taken to
this Court, where it is decided that the
question is not whether this issue of Con-
Tolerate States notes was Legal act, but
whether in agreement to receive them in
pay men, Of sale Of property, made the
CONTRACT between the parties Illegal II
the object Of The sale had been to aid the
circulation and credit Of the notes, and so
advance The eause of the Confederacy,
the case might be otherwise, But no
such iuten, Is aycrred or pretended. Tie
consideration Of the agreement is the land
conveyed. Therei Is no illegality in this.
Founded on this consideration. the party
promised to pay certain amount Of dol.
lars, aud he is not coerccd to pay Con.
Tolerate notes. At most, that Is only a
benefit which he might avail himself of
"In 1864 the confederate Government
had existed de tacto for three years, The
currency which it issued was the only
means whereby the people were enabled
to carry on the avoculons Of life. and it
would be ,nonstrous to hold that, for this
period, all their transactions we're void,
because Confederate money was used to
represent value. The result Of the de-
cree in this ease is to permit the defend
ants to hold their title to valuable tract
Of land, and to be discharged from the
purchase money, while they admit that
The notesin which they were to pay, had
a value at the time. If the decree had
given the complainant the amount Of the
value Of the notes at tie time of the con-
tract, there would have been an appear
uncc Of equity. But as il stands, il is as
void of morality as it is Of equity.
"On the triul. the Court admitted evil
dcnce against the objection Of the com.
pluinant, to show that the understanding
was, that the payment called Ter, was to
be in Confederate notes, AS to this ru.
ling, il is conteudcd that where q party
has promised to pay SO many dollars"
as in this case there is no auihori,y which
would sanction evidence Of an agreement
that dollars meant, not what the law has
determined, but something very different
Confederate Treasury notes. TIE words
Of the contrae, arc plain. There is no
room for construction or explanation.
But the defendants violated their agree
lncnt, on their. own construction Of it, and
as found by the Court. If payable in
Confederate Treasury notes, j: was paya-
ble on tue Cd Of December, 1864; and
such notes were not rendered on that day,
nor Il. any subsequent time.
sin this case. there should have been
decree for the value Of the Treasury notes
at the time Of sale, it is impossible that q
Court ofcopseience shall turn tie appellant
out Of Court without anything but the
costs upon him. Such a Court will not
permit The defendants to take advantage
Of their own wrong. refuse to pay when
the notes are due, aud ever since. and
still hold on to the bonds.a They will be
compelled to return the land. or to pay
for It such sum as their contract cnga-
md tbon, NJ ~ en,,;y.1ont vnlps