The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1869-11-02
~ IMPORTANT DECISION.
Iho validity of Confederate Oblign-
tfons.
WASHINGTON, November 1.

WASHINGTON, November I.
VI ne nitcd States Supreme Court to-day, In
IN 04 1 Thorrington vs. Smyth aud Hartley
Sifo NhOLmn, the decision OF the court beli N
(. Was ,tNe.acd and tho cause rcmandcd for ncM
yirlai Thr appeal was upon bill In equity for
she 1hfcrocmont OF o vcndorsilcn. Smyth ana
s lartlcy purchased ThorrIngton's land and gave
& rroini| Dry note for part payment. The transac-
ncn occurred in 1884. Without notifying circum-
: stances Thorrington would be entitled to n de-
2 cree for the amount and interest. The defence
spcaucd that only Confederate notes were current;
Sfhat the and was worth only $4,000 in real money
that tn contract price was s45ooO gas 900 where
Sof was sctually paid in Confederate notes. and
the note orthe remaining $4,000 was to be dis.
charges In the samo manner, and 1t was claimed
on this slate OF facts that the vendor was entitled
10 Nc ieiiuf In the United States Court. This was
sustained by the court below and the case dismiss
ed. lie questions before the Supreme Court,
upon appeal, are: First. Can contract for the
payment Of Confederate notes, made during tho
)die rebellion, between parties residing within
'ne socallcd Confederate States, be enforced
a. ali IL the courts OF the Unified States7 Second
Can evidence be received to prove that promise
eSP ressrd to be for the payment OF dollars was in
! iact for the payment OF any other than the law
iul dollars OF the United States2 Third. Docs the
= evidence in the record establish the fact that the
Eotc for ten thousand dollars was to be paid by
,a,reement Of the parties in Confederate notes
The flrst question Is answered aGlrmatlvely. The
= second question Is answered Rflirmativcly with
the following remarks: ave are clearly OF opin.
/. lon thar such evidence must be received I'm re-
apect 10 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: "We do not think
II necessary to go Into a detailed examination of
the evidence In the record. II is enough to say
that 1t has left us, with doubt In our minds, that
tho note for ten thousand dollars TO cnforc, pay
me.t 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 con!eieracy, computing dollars Mt the value
OF Confederate notes at the time the obligation
Was incurred.
The supreme Court also decides that issues of
8 tennessee State bonds previous to the war are
good tenders for Tennessee State taxes, ana man.
Sdamus IS Issued compelling county officers to re-
sseiye these notes for still licenses
In the case OF Samuel Il. Paul vs. Virginia, In.
dicted for issuing Insurance policies without
Statea license, tho Supreme Court affirmed the
decisions OF the lower court, holding that corpo.
1 rations are not citizens within the meaning OF
he constitution, and that Issuing insurance poll.
q no nar rt nf