The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1870-06-28
LOCAL MATTERS,


OTHER LOCAL MATTERS ON SECOND PAGE,
Important Decision made by MIR.
Chase-An Administrators who In.
vested in Confederate Bonds Or.
dered to make n New Settlement.
Circuit Court Of the United States-F6urth
Circuit and District of Virginia:
John Head, Adeline Head (born Starke),
and Charlotte E. starke, Us. Ezekiel S.
Ialley, administrator de 5onls non of
John Starke, deceased. IL ..,t:
This is a suit in equity brought to enforce
payment by the defendant to the plaintiffs
Of their distributive shares Of the estate of
The decedent, John Starke.
The proof shows that the plaintiffs, Ade-
Inc Head and Charlotte X. Starke, were
children, and are the only surviving heirs of
John Starke, and that the defendant had in
lis hands as administrator on the 31st of
January, 1860, the sum of 81 ,249.SS belong
ng to the estate. It is claimed by the de-
eetdant that he subsequently disbursed con-
saterable sums in payment Of just claims
agdnst the estate, by which the balance in
his hands was SO far reduced that on the
20tl of September, 1868, only the sum of
tive housand and odd dollars remained.
III defendant states that the records and
papes of the Hanover county court were
destrwcd by fire, and among them the re-
CORDS { the settlement by which this ba-
lance, @ about five thousand dollars was
ascertaled. <1Is..s f-s<.-, -'i
1t is greed by counsel that the records
In .sundy cases, in which certain DEGREES
and orde;s were made affecting the balance
in the halls of the plaintiff, were destroy
ed by the ire mentioned by the defendant !;
but there is no agreement that the record
OF the last settlement, on which he relies,
was thus detroyed. - 4'.av ,sr...'
1t appearsin proof that the defandant, as
administrator, invested five thousand dol
lars i'll the lo,a Of the States then confede-
rated in arnRd hostility to the United
States, and received from the officers of the
so-called Confederate Government certif-
cate for that SUN. III
1t is not disputed on the part of the de-
fendant that there must be decree for an
account, and thai he is liable to the COM
plainants tor whatever balance may be found
in his hands exceeding the five thousand
dollars. ...-.
The important questions in the case are
FrSt.-Was the Investment in the loan of
the Confederate Sites one which a pru-
dent person acting as trustee or admins
traitor might make? And
Secondly Vas the Investments being ac-
tually made in a loan 10 politico-mlitary
organization formed ior the purpose OF
overthrowing the Union of the States under
the national Constitution and establishing
new confederation in portion of those
States one which, under any circum-
stances, can be recognized in the courts Of
the United States rs eXcusing the admins
traitor from accounting for the funds in his
hands to the parties otherwise entitled law
fully to receive them?
Upon the first question little NAV be said.
1t must indeed be regardedas already de-
cided. The court of the State authorized
by law to consider and sanction invest
ments by administrators sanctioned the loan
under consideration !; and it is agreed that
the most prudent and careful business men
were in the constant habit of making such
investments. 1t would seem, therefore, to
be unreasonable to call in question the good
faith or prudence of the administrator in
the circumstances by which he was sur.
rounded. II there had been no decision of
the State court approving the Investment
we could not say that the administrator
ought to be charged il the investment
were free from objection on other grounds.
This makes it necessary to consider the
second question. But we need not ex-
anime it ut length. for in the case OF Bolts
rs. Crensha,o, in this court, we held that the
even Of Confederate eHrrency in
Confederate bonds by an attorney who had
collected debt due to q citizen or Hen
lucky in the currency under what We're
considered to be justifying circumstances
did not absolve him from accounting for it's
value. although in that case as in this the
investment had been sanctioned by court
whose decision but for the abnormal con-
dition created by the rebellion would have
been conclusive. '&a..
This case, we think, covers the present IN
principle. So in the case Of ShortTzdge Us.
Macon the Circuit Court of the United
States for the district Of North Carolina,
speaking through the presiding judge Of the
court, held that compulsory payment to
receiver under an order Of court Of the
United States of debt due to q citizen OF
Pennsylvania did not excuse the debtor
from the duty of paying the same due to the
original creditor. 5E s'
And we think that these decisions are
by the reasoning Of the Supreme
Court in the case Of Teas us. Wh1te, 7
WALL, 733.
Nor is there anything in the case OF
IHOr7ngtOp US. Sneath," . w all, IL, WHICH
conflicts with the case Of Bolts Us. Cren-
sha,o and Shortr1dge uS. Macon. In that
case the Supreme Court held chat contracts
for payment IN Confederate
currency "cannot be regarded for that rea-
,on only" as void; but in this case there
vas something more than the mere use OF
currency imposed on the community by
irresistible force. There was an actual ad-
vance of money to the Contederacy itself.
There was en- investment of trust funds,
entirely voluntary on the part OF the ad-
in a. loan to the Confederate
to aid it in its effort to dismem.
Der the Union and to overthrow the Ma!
;ional Government. T. e:a@ sa
Whatever may have been the motive In
lucing such an investment, however 1t may
nave been warranted by example, or even
~ judicial authority, itself involved in the
general rebellion, it is impossible that it
jhould receive the sanction Of q court OF
he United States. j, ~ ~ -. fa:,s
We must hold, therefore, the invest:
nent complained of to be: imperative as q
discharge from responsibility to the comi
claimant, and will SO decree, ordering an
account by the defendant with the-eom,