Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-08

tween that case anu tne case now uuueT
consideration. Here stringent military
order is established by proof. Here it is
| shown that the order was published
| throughout the country. The order, itself,
| contains a threat of fine, imprisonment
and confiscation. 1t was issued by an Of
ficer of high rank, and circulated by sol
| diers who were in arms. 1t was not .
mere brut,lDa ftttDsera, but was vigorous
ly executed, and created general trepidation
and alarm. The defendant, Hammons,
himself soldier, artfully turned the or
der to his own private and personal ad-
vantage. He did not use it in aid of the
cause which he had hired himself to sup
port as a soldier, but employed
it as means of coercion, to
compel a contract which he could
not otherwise have obtained, sand, with
the view of arousing, to the greatest ex
tent, the fear of his victim, actually mis-
represented it and threatened, with it and
by its assumed operation, the life of the
complainant, and not merely his impris-
onmentor the confscation of his property.
Continuing to hold that vague and indef-
mite fears, which might have been COM
mon to all the citizens, are not sufficient
| to invalidate private contracts, we hold,
also, that when military order, such as
has been proved In this case, was directly
appealed to and employed as a threat, or
means of coercion, by one citizen against
another, and his personal fear was
thereby aroused and excited, so as to
compel him to make a contract or do an
act which he would not have done but for
such personal fear, such contract, or act,
is utterly null and void.
From the evidence in this case, we
have no doubt, that the complainant
executed the deed under the fear of death,
or at least, of imprisonment or confsca
ton; and, although it is not in proof
that, at or Immediately before, the pre-
else moment of signing the deed, any
threat was made, we are satisfied from the
facts and circumstances appearing in
the record that the defendant did, in the
first instance, by his threats, arouse the
fear of death, Imprisonment OF cOn1sca-
ton; that he never disabused or sought
to disabuse the mind of complainant of
the impression thus created; but on the
contrary, continued from time to time, to
deepen and enlarge them; and that the
fear thus created and continued was pres
ent and existing when complainant execn-
ted the conveyance. The confederate
notes were left with him forcibly and
against his will, and in despite of his
timid but earnest remonstrance. While
he held only little bond for his land
Hammons was the busy and active agent
in employing his own counsel to prepare
deed to complainant in its place, and
also to prepare deed from complainant
to his (hammons,) two minor sons who
had no agency in procuring it. He re-
moved into the house on the premises
before the complainant and his family had
left it,, where it may be fairly presumed
he conducted himself with domineeriDg
insolence, and is expressly proved, he
declared that complainant had been try
ing to get him to take the money back,
but swore with blasphemous oath that
he did not intend to, do 60, and significantly
announced that "when he made trade
he made it" After complainant had re-
moved from the houses, and probably
after the Confederate forces had left the
country, Hammons stated, in the hearing
of one of the witnesses, that eff the
Rebs. would come back, he had the other
hundred dollars for old man Boyle, I"
meaning, doubtless, that he would com
pei him to receive it, in Confederate notes;
as he had forced him to receive the eight
hundred dollars. III. ..- ...f g----
Aside from the question of duress, it is
apparent, from the evidence, that the de-
fendaut Hammo rs, who was insOlvent be
fore he received the one thousand dollars
in Confederate notes, perpetrated fraud
upon complainant, in assuring him that
they were as good as gold; in promising
him to take them back if they could not
be used in the payment of his debts,
and in refusing to do so, when com
plainant offered TO return them. 1t has
been earnestly contended, in argument,
that complainant did use $3.50 of the
Confederate money" paid to him by
Hammons, in a payment to Stone, ad-
ministrator of Ranes, from whom the
land was originally purchased; but al
though it is in proof that HammOns
was present at the time, or upon the day
when the payment was made, it is not
shown by the declarations of the parties,
or otherwise, that the "money" 80 paid
was any part of the fund left by or re-
ceived from HammoDs; and it is in
proof that complainant had received Con-
feders:e ''money" from other sources.
The witnesses do not testify as to the
precise amount, but say that he had ''a
great roll of il" and, as that species of
money was quite abundant, it is more
than probable he had acquired enough
from other sources. 1t is also in proof
that complainant spoke of investing the
Confederate money in cattle and other
stock, and that he made some small in
vestments and admitted that one hundred
dollars of the amount had been received
from Hammons As the complainant
did not tender the Confederate money re-
ceived from Hammons with his bill, or at
any time in the progress of the cause, it
is quite probable he used the same, or
part thereof, although it is shown that he
had Confederate ''money" on hands at
the close of the war.
A tender of the Confederate money
however, at or since the commencement
of the suit, would have been an idle cere-
mony, as it had become utterly worthless.
But it is in proof that at the time Of the
contract Confederate notes had market
able or commercial value, and, although
it was small, it is equitable and just that
as complainant does net show what be-
came of the Confederate money he re-
ceived, he should account for its value at
the time he received it, and that defend
ant, Hammons, should account for the
rents and profits of the lands, minus the
value of any betterments, actually en-
HANGING its value, which he has placed
upon it since he took possession.
Other propositions have been vehe-
mently urged in argument by the de-
PENDANTS; but after very careful examss
ination of this voluminCus record aud sll
the evidence, relevant and irrelevant,
contained in it, we are unable to perceive
that the credibility Of any of the witnesses
has been successfully assailed. There is
no proof as to the general character Of
either Of them, and the legal presumption
is that all have testified the truth. l.
would be useless to repeat here the names
| of the witnesses or to particularize
the statements which have been
assailed. The evidence of per-
sons who have been examined
under oath cannot be impeached, as seems
to be the effort in this case, by showing
trivial discrepancies as to collateral mat