Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-07-12
rag UNION AND AMERICAN
An IMPoRTANT DECISION.
An Administrator who Invested IN
Confederate HOnds Ordered to
make a, New Serfleuaeats


- The following highly important decis-
ion was rendered by Chief Justice Chase
at the recent term of the Circuit Court
of the United States at Richmond, Vfr-
ginia:
John Head, Adeline Head, Cborn starke) and
Charlotte E. Stsrke, VS.. Ezekiel s. Talley, adj
ministrator dc bonis non of John Starke, de
ceased.
This is suit in equity brought TO en-
force payment by the defendant to the
plaintiffs of their distributiye shares OF
the estate Of the decedent John StarlSe.
The proof shows that the pialntiirs,
Adeline Head and Charlotte TX. Starke,
were children, and the only surviving
heirs of John Starlze, and that tne de-
PENDANT had in his hands as administrator
on the 31st of January, 1860, the sum OF
81. 249. IS belonging TO the estate. II is
claimed by the defendant that he subse-
oI1entlV discussed considerable sums in
payment of Just claims against the estate,
bv which the balance in his hands was so
far reduced that on the 29th of Septem-
Der. 1863, only the sum of five thousand
and odd dollars remained. gf
The defendant states that the records
and papers of the Hanover County Court
were destroyed by fire, and among them
the records of the settlement by which
this balance of about five thousand dollars
was ascertained. .
lis agreed by counsel that, the records
10 sundry cases, in which certain DEGREES
and orders were made affecting the balance
in the hands of the plaintiff, were de-
stroyed by the fire mentioned by the de-
PENDANT; but there is no agreement that
the record of the last settlement, on which
he relies, was thus destroyed.
1t appearsin proof that the defendant,
as administrator, invested five thousand
dollars in the loan of the States then con
federated in armed hostility to the United
States, and received from the officers Of
the so-called Confederate government a
certificate for that sum.
1t is not disputed on the part of the de-
PENDANT that there must be decree for
an account, and that he is liable to the
compleinants for whatever balance may
be found in his hands exceeding the five
thousand dollars. .. 4
The important questions in the case are
two:
WAS investment in the loan of the
Confederate States one which prudent
person acting as trustee or administrator
might make2 And,
2. Was the investment being actually
made in loan TO a politico-military or
ganization formed for the purpose of
overthrowing the Union of the States
under the national Constitution and estab-
fishing new confederation in a portion
OF those States one which, under any cir
cumstances, can be recognized in the
courts of the United States as excusing
the administrator from accounting for |
the funds in hands to the parties other |
wise entitled lawfully to receive them2 |
Upon the first question little may be |
said. 1t must indeed be regarded as al |
ready decided. The court of the State
authorized by law TO consider and sane |
ton investments by administrators sane
toned the loan under consideration, and |
it is agreed that the most prudent and |
careful business men were in the con-
slant habit of making such investments. |
1t would seem, therefore, to be unreason-
able to call in question the good faith or
prudence of the administrator in the cir
cumstances by which he was surrounded.
If there had been no decision of the
State Court approving the investment we
could not say that the administrator
ought to be charged if the investment
were free from objection on other
grounds.
THIS makes it necessary to consider the |
second question. But we need not exam
inc it at length, for in the case of Bolts
VS.. Crenshaw, in this court, we held that
the Investment even of Confederate cur
rency in Confederate bonds by an attorney
who had collected debt due to a citizen
of Kentucky in the currency, under what
were considered to be justifying circum-
stances did not absolve him from account
ing for its value, although in that case, as
in this, the investment had been sane
toned by court whose decision, but for
the abnormal condition created by the re-
bellion, would have been conclusive.
This case, we think, covers the present
In principle. So the case of Shortridge
vs. Macon the Circuit Court of the Uni
ted States, for the district of North Caro-
lima, speaking through the presiding judge
of the court, held that compulsory pay
ment to a receiver under an order of a
court of the United States of debt due
to q citizen of Pennsylvania did not ex-
cuse the debtor from the duty of paying
the same due to the original creditor.
And we think that these decisions are
sustained by the reasoning of the Supreme
Court in the case of Texas VS.. White, 7
Wall, 1888.
Nor is there anything in the case of
Thorington VS. Smith, Wall, u, which
conflicts with the case of Bolts VS. Cren-
shaw and Shortridge VS. Macon. In that
case the Supreme Court held that con
tracts STIMULATING for payment in Confed-
crate currency "cannot be regarded for
that reason only" as void; but in this
case there was something more than the
mere use of currency imposed on the
community by irresistible force. There
was an actual advance of money to the
Confederacy itself. There was an invest
ment of trust funds, entirely voluntary
on the part the of administrator, in loan
to the Confederate Government to aid it
n its efforts to dismember the Union and
20 overthrow the National Government
Whatever may have been the motive
inducing such an investment, however it
may have been warranted by example, or
even by judicial authority, itself involved
in the general rebellion, it is impossible
that it should received the sanction of a
court of the United States.
We must hold, therefore, the invest
ment complained of to be imperative as a
discharge from responsibility to the com
plainant, and will so decree, ordering an
account by the defendant with the com
plsinants, and payment of such sum as
may be found.
SHALL THE FAIR GRO UNDS BE-
COME A RACE COURSEl
To the Editors of the Union and American: