The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-06-10


satisfactory TO form the basis of decree, no
damages are to he allowed him. 80, VS.
The general principles on which this case
must he adjudicatcd were announced at the
last term. But = suit commenced by the
defendant (Waller) in State court of New
York against the plaintiff Rigler) prior to
the bringing of the present suit i'm this
court was then pending and undetermined,
and we did not think proper untn that suit
should be disposed Of to proceed to tinl de-
That suit, however, has been terminated
by discontinuance, and there is no reason
why final disposition OF the litigation,
should not now be made. ,.,4as ''.''U -
The principles stated at the last term re-
quire that all the exceptions taken to the
report of Commissioner Chaho( n be sus-
tanned, except SO far rs the viewsliow to lie
stated may affect this general order.
It is not denied that on the 10th of May,
1860, the sum of $4,000 was due from the
plaintiff BigleD to the defendant (Walerl
rs a balance of the purchase money agreed
to be paid for the estate sold TO the former
by the latter. JfiJIl 'ss.' ..:a. - ..'.
The questions to be considered are these
!" /. BY what, rule shall interest be com.
puted ON this balance? In other words.
Shall interest be allowed for the period dll.
ring which intercourse between the parties
and between the paris Of the country in
which they respectively. lived was sus-
pended by the civil war? ~"ih''
In 1. case decided by the circuit court Of
the United States for the district Of North
Carolina it was held that interest did
cease during the recent civil war in con-
sequence of the residence Of the par.
ties to the contract in the hostile
sections of the country. Since that de-
cision was made it has been held by the
Supreme Court of the United states, in
the case Of HangerUs. Abbott, 6 Wall, 5S2
that the statute of limitations was sus
pended in the inst1rgent States to non
residents having causes of action against
residents by the civil war. And in the case
was held that under the circumstances
of that particular case interest did not
cease, the opinion Of the II court Has
put upon circumstances creating !aI
exception to the general rule that In.
terest does not accrue, during war BE-
tween citizens. or subjects of & belhgereni
States. The general rule was neither az
tirmed nor denied but 1t may not unreason
ably be inferred from the language Of the
court that if the direct question presented
by this case were before that tribunal il
would be resolved in favor OF the maker ol
the bond. Bigler, the maker, was in occu
patton of the. estate purchased at the conf
Tnencenient Of the war by his agent apdpQl
only was he wholly excluded from occupancy
and from possession during it's continuance,
but the improvements put on the property
by, him at great cost were destroyed and
the estate otherwise was, greatly injured
Waller, the Obligee, was In the Confederate
army, and ut q sale made under the trust
and executed 'by Bigler to secure the bond
became himself the purchaser and he was
doubtless, though SINCE the war he has dis.
claimed title to the land as Against Bigler,
entitled as such purchaser to the possession
We have already said that Waller is not
to be held responsible for the injuries sus-
tanned by Bigler in consequence of the war
but. on the other hand. we cannot doubt
that if interest on q, debt should cease
in any case it should cease in this
and our duty is toHdetermine this question
as we believe it would be determined ny
the Supreme Court If submitted to It's con- COZ
. :" II is more difficult to determine the Pc
riod during Which interest should cease.
The actual beginaing, OF war against, r the
United States, doubtless. preceded tho pro-
clnmation of the President OF the 10th oi
April, 1851, calling cut the militia TO sup
press inslirrectlon = butt the. proclamation
ffieclaring the blockade of The ports snOf the
insufgent States must be regarded rs the
first formal recognition of the existence OF
civil 3wsr by the u National Government.
That proclamation was issued OH the 18th
fof April, and that date, therefore, must be
taken az the date Of the, commencement OF
the,war. Il The period offs termination has
not been 80 definitely aseertained. 1t was
declared by the concurrent action sof. the
President and of Congress TO have ended on
the Cd Of August 1868, iard' this date has
been recognfze by the Supr reme Court the
,doned and captured property act and some
other h; ,;gialatiYe pro visions I'm Another ehse
depending on the effect Of the statute OF iinni-
.fafsons the court thought tit to decline fixing
any precise date of termination applicable te
all esses. This question beipgthsy left open,
/. .slxsggfa4 a3EAaaiii All sg 81