Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-01-11
SUPREME COURT OPINIONs
Brownsville, Tenn .ADril Term.
E80S---EAOH. II. GOldVveii. At
EOrRey-Geuegas and Reporter.

& NJ. Apperson, Surviving partner, vs.. Z. C. D.
Hynum.
Harrison, Judge, delivered the opinion
Of the Curt. The proof in this cause
shows the following state OF facts Lua.
dy made the note sued on in this action,
onthe l7th Of February 1852, paysble six
months alter date, TO the order OF By
num, defendant la error, payable ct the
branch OF the Union Bank OF Tennessee
at Memphis, aud Bynum Endorsed the
note, the word Memphis appearing just
after his nam in the Endorsement
Whether the werd Memphis there ap.
pearing was written bY Bynum, Is net
shown. The plaintiff In error, 4. Nj.
AppeTscn, is the surviving partner OF +
NJ. AppersOn * Co., sud became the
holder 0f TIE note. Ga the 18th of Feb
ruaTy, 1882, when the note was made,
the maker, indorser and holder sill re-
sided within the lines and district Of
country OF the C~Onfederates, who Oceu-
pied the country in and around the city
OF Memphis--the plaintiff residing in
Memphis, the maker, Lundy, some
ten or twelve miles south of Memphis,
aud Bynum in Mississippi, several
miles sOuth Of Lundy's, and south
" NOnoODnsh creek. The branch Of
the Union Bank at Memphis, where the
note was payable, under the orders OF
The rebel Gen. Beauregard, removed its
assets South, on the 18th OF May, 1852;
but the offics was kept open by Z. w.
smith, the cashier, to answer the Ques-
lions CT any persons ia the community
who had any interest in the affairs OF
jhe bank, 10 receive special deposits
the risk OF the deposition, and partly,
also, To prevent the occupation and con-
hscatiOn Of the property by the United
states. From the 28th of May, 1852,
until February, 1854, no general business
was transacted, aud its assets were no
returned until June, 1855. The military
forces OF the United States took posses
sisn of and permanently occupied Mem
phis on the 9th to the 10 of June, 1862.
The United States picket lines extended
around the city some WI miles, and
never extended beyond Nonconnah
creek, which creek wss between LuR-
iy's house and. Memphis. Their lines
81 permanent occupation extended be-
yOEd from two to four miles from the
city. The country south of thst was
0 and then occupied by the forces OF
each helligerent. Several witnesses ex-
smined testified that in August and Sep
tember, 1852, persons passed freely from
Memphis TO tbs neighbOrhOOd of Llndy
and Bynum without difficulty, and came
Osck Ia the same manner, but that the
Federal picket lines surrounded Mem
phis.
Lundy, as il is shown, was also IN the
city Of Memphis In the summer and fall
o. 1852, The witness Ford had, during that
timei frequently gone ont to the neigh.
ooThoOd OF Lundy and Bynum without
q pass, snd states that the pass system
nTaa mt udnnfaH nnFff FFarrun-la
The proof further shows that the at
torney Of the holder of the note handed
the original note 10 the witness, J.. p.
Young, to make 3 demand Of the maker
for payment, and q notice of demand
and refusal Of payment TO be served on,
OF delivered, to defendant, as an indorser
the note, which notice is dated the
25th May, 1865, and the certificate OF
statement of the delivery thereof is in
the words following
May 2G.b, 1865. On this day, 7, at
the request Off. NJ. Apperson, surviving
partner Of e. NJ. AppersOn & Co., pre-
the note for SIS 22I 90 lot which
fhe suhj0ined is 2 true copy 10 William
l. LUndy in person, AID demanded pay.
nent of said note from him, which was
WheTeupOn, the same day ]
proceeded TO the house of B. G. D. BY
and delivered to him q written no.
ice ofssid demand, and refusal OF pay
nent, in theusuRl form. J.. p. YoUNG."
rhe notice, exhibit 3 to YOung's depo-
dated Es above stated, on the 18th
May, 1865, was delivered to Bynum on
the 90 d May, 1866, which occurred. as
By The witness Young, by the
counsel OF plaintiff having made out the
notice three days before Young served. Ii
u defendant.
After a careful and elaborate review OF
5he Arguments on both sides the learned
Judge ruled that although 1t was clearly
that, as against the indorser,
a note is payable at a certain place, ]
t must be presented for payment, yet
nat, where this had become impractical
Ole, demand at such place is excused.
He therefore reversed the judgment
and remanded the casa for a new trisl.
An application for rehearing was, after
3 review Of the former argument, re-
fused.