The Charleston daily news. [volume] (Charleston, S.C.) 1865-1873, 1870-12-23
ORDER OF ADJoURSAEE
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.

terest, and involving questions of grave impor.
tance, q summary Of some Of the decisions lately
pronounced by the Supreme Court Of the State:
J., A. Neely vs. ]. II. McFadden--Op deliv.
cred by Willard, A. ]. Suit on promissory
note, dated 22d December, 1858, payable twelve
l. Where no mention is made on the face OF a
contract OF Confederate States notes. but the con-
tract calls for dollars,n In '.aWful money" 1t Is
| competent TO show, by extrineic proof the fact
that the parties dealt with reference to the Con-
federate currency.
2. where this fact appears, resort may be had
to "the act to determine the value OF contracts
made in Confederate notes, or! their equivalent
passed March 26th, 1859, as means OF ascertain
ing the value Of such Confederate currency.
s. That this act Is not final and conclusive
between the parties as regards tfe class OF con-
to which It applies SgI may IN
OF the act a5 TO the true state OF reiatlVe
values.
@. Muller ys ]. W. Earheart-opinion f''lvered
BY Willard. A. j.; Moses, Ch. j., dh enttng.
Held
That debtor is entitled to the allowance Of q
homestead exemption where the Indebtedness
arose under q contract, which was put into judg.
ment antecedent to the. adoption OF the home"
stead provisions.
J. r. Shuler VS.. J. Mason. Jr., ct al-0pinion de-
llvered by Willard, A. j. Held
That homestead exemption cannot be allowed
under the Constitution Of this State against 8
executed prior 10 the adoption OF the homestead
provisions, whether the spld mortgage be execu-
ted for the purchase money or otherwise.
The principle OF the exemption laws Is tnappli-
cable to such o case. To hold otherwise would be
in violation Of the article OF the constitution de:
claring that mo laws impalring the obligation Of
contracts shall ever be enacted.n
W. 9; Howe vs.. TIC Mowze7qplnion @ asaVer- isa a
cestor, died intestate, seized or large tract Oh
land in 1866. prior to the adoption Of the home.
stead provision, leaving as his heir at law his inD
FAINT son, Samuel Howe. Held
l. That the homestead exemptions are consti'
tutional, and applicable to antecedent debts.
2 The purpOrt OF the fourth section.ol the acc
to determine and perpetuate Gne homestead,
passed September I, 1858, is TO provide for tae
sessea Of such right at the time OF his DEATH In
this case the ancestor died In 1865 previous to the
adoption OF the homestead egula:tons and ar & as he
Saa nave nj s5Rtest a5bfcaloa 10 such case.
5. 1t not appearing that the premises have been
held by q family as q family homestead ut any
time since the provisions or the constitution nave
been 10 operation, nor that Samuel Howe is the
stead to he laid ont to him directly.
Case remanded to the Circuit Court for further
and more complete proof.
]. McKeegan vs.. D. McSwiney,nopinl0n M ae,iV- n :,
August 1854 sold the defendant certain real es'
tate for $50, 900. The defendant paid onehalf In
cash, In Confederate States treasury notes, ana
for the remainder executeu ms 99nu, seCuLeu uy
Years after the blockade OF the port OF Charleston
shall have been enectualy raised, With Interest
thereon, semi annually, from date and gave also
good personal security on the @ 6oliu: u, ,
The question was whether The bond was paya-
BILE In Confederate currency, or In such medium
as should be lawful money, ut the maturity OF the
bond. Held
That the plaintiff could only recover the value
90 nj NonfpdPratH
portion to It's relation to lawful money as OF tne
date OF the bond.
Chief Justice Moses dssented.
r. F. Harman vs.. B. Wallace. Opinion delivered
by Moses. chief Justice Plaintiff sued on prom
Bsory note, dated October 20, 1858, for $4,000 pay
able January l, 1866 with interest from January
!. 1854 given for the purchase OF land.
Evidence was given both as TO the value OF the
land, irl good money. at the time OF the purchase,
and the value Of Confederate currency at the time
OF the execution OF the noe held.
L That the instruction OF the Circuit Judge, that
the iury were to ascertain and find for the plain
ttff the value OF the land in good money, tnational
CURRENCY at the date OF the purchase with inter-
est computed annually from that period to the
date OF the verdict, was error.
Q That although II was compel eat to Introduce
evidence both as to the value Of the lan1 and or
Confederate currency In ORDER under the ordi-
nance that regard being had to rhe particular Cir.
cumstances Of each case snca yerdiGc mhtgns DC
the parties 1t was for the Jury TO say what was
the true value and real character Of the consider
alton OF the contract ut the time 1t was made,
whether the value Of the land, O." the value OF the
Confederate currency.
2. That the circuit court erred In holding that
the act OF Assembly, approved 9th March, 1869,
to determine the value OF con tracts madein Con.
federate notes. or their equivalent" was null and
void, as lmpairlng the obligation, OF contracts.
4. That the act Is competent hut not exclusive
| evidence OF the value which Confederate notes
bore to lawful money at the various periods specl
! fed in the act.
serited from SO much OF the opinion OF the court
IA declares; that the value Of theland could be con-
sidered in determining the contract.