The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-11-02
AN MPoREANT DECISION.
The Validity OF Confederate Obliga-
tions.
WASHINGTON. November l.

WASHINGTON, November !.
In the United States Supreme Court to-day, in
the ease OF Thorrington vs. Smyth and Hartley,
from Alabama the decision Of the court below
was reversed and the cause remanded for new
trial The appeal was upon bill In equity for
the enforcement OF q vendors lien. smyth and
Hartley purchased Thorrington's land and gave
promissory note for part payment. The transac-
tion occurred IL 1854. Without notifying circum-
stapSes Thorrington would be entitled to de-
cree for the amount and interest. The defence
pleaded that only Confederate notes were current;
thst the land was worth only $4,000 In real money;
that the contract price was s45 000 s25 900 where
OF was actually paid in Confederate notes, and
the note for the'remaining $4,000 was to be dis
charged In the same manner, and 1t was claimed
lon this state Of facts that the vendor was entitled
to no relief In the United States Court. This was
sustained By the court below and the case dismiss
cd. The questions before the Supreme Court,
upon appeal, are: First. Can contract for the
payment Of Confederate notes. made during the
hate rebellion, between parties residing within
me so-called Confederate States, DO enforced
|at a in the courts Of the Unified States? Second.
Can evidence be received to prove that promise
Expressed to be for the payment Of dollars was In
fact for the payment Of any ether than the law
fui dollars OF the United Statesf Third. Does the
evidence In the record establish the fact that the
mote for ten thousand dollars was to be paid by
agreement Of the. parties in Confederate notess
|The first question is answered afirmatively. The
second question is answered anirmatively with
tha following remarks: 1--WE are clearly Of opin-
ion that such evidence must be received in re-
spect to such contract, In order that justice
may be done between the parties, and that
the party entitled TO-. be paid in these
Confederate dollars can only receive their actual
value at the time and place Of the contract in
lawful money Of the United States" On the
third question the court says: eve do not think
it necessary to go into detailed examination Of
the evidence in the record 1t is enough to say
that it has left rs, with doubt in our minds, that
theJfote for ten thousand dollars to enforce pay
rent OF which suit was brought in the Circuit
Court, was to be paid by agreement Of the par
ties in Confederate notes."
This decision gives validity to obligations within
the Confederacy, computing dollars at the value
Of Confederate notes at the time the obligation
Was incurred.
The Supreme Court also decides that issues OF
Tennessee State bonds previous to the war are
good tenders for Tennessee State taxes, and man.
damus is issued compelling county officers to re-
ceive these notes for stin licenses.
In the case Of Samuel B. Paul vs. Virginia, in
dscted for issuing insurance policies without
States license, the Supreme Court affirmed the
decisions Of the lower court, holding that corpo-
rations are not citizens within the meaning Of
the constitution and that issuing insurance poll
eies Is no part OF commerce.