Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1871-07-01
A "REMINISCENCES OF THE "LOST
CAUSE"

Confederate Scrip as a Legal Ten.
Some Cotton sold Before the Close
of the civil War, for which Con.
federate Money was Paid.
From the New York Standard. June 23.l VI
In the Supreme Circuit Court yester-
day, before Mr.. Justice Brady, the suit
ofJames L. Brown VS.. Reuben 4, Slough
ton was tried go The parties were both
residents of Florida On the 4th of May,
1865, the date of General Johnston's sur
render, he sold some eight bales Of sea
island cotton to the defendant, for Con-
federate money, at the rate of three dol
lars per pound. AT that time the news
Of Lees surrender had ireached him, in
somewhat modified form, but not the
news Of Johnston surrender. The Con-
federate currency was paid, but the cot
ton was not to be actually delivered till
some time after. A few days after plain
tiff heard of Johnston's surrender, and
at once sent word to his nephew, who
had charge of the cotton not to deliver
it,. At the same time he sent back the
Confederate scrip to the defendant Be-
fore his message reached his nephew, the
defendant had come and marked the cot
ton as his own, but for lack of transpor-
tation had not actually removed it. DE,
however, next day succeeded in obtain
ing from the nephew, Notwithstanding
the countermand and his own knowledge
Of it, delivery of the cotton.
The plaintiff brought suit to recover
the value of the cotton. His theory was
that the government Of the South in re-
bellion was mere military government,
and the adjuncts of it as government
de faeto, including the currency issued
by it, had validity for any purpose what
ever only just so long as it had decent
military force in the field. That the in
slant its military force fell absolutely,
and its civil government hunted fugi-
tives, its currency became absolutely
yalueless, and the sale had no consider
alton to support il, unless the plaintiff
knowing the state of the country, delib-
erately took the scrip, not as money,
but as so much paper. That on discov
ering the fact of its worthlessness he had
the right to rescind the contract, and
did SO with all diligence.
The testimony turned on the question
Of whether plaintiff might have learned
of the surrender of Johnstons army,
and whether Lees surrender had not so
far impressed all reasonable men in that
section of the hopelessness of the cause
that Johnston's surrender was imma-
terial.
The defendants theory of the law was
that the Confederate scrip however de-
preciated, continued to be money, at
least for the purpose of forming con
sideration for contract so long as the
rebellion lasted and that, however, the
fall of Gettysburg, the tall Of Atlanta,
the surrender of Lee or of Johnston, the
flight and arrest Of Davis might depre-
ciate it, it did lot cease to be money I'LL
the close of the rebellion, and that this
close in the eye of the law was not till
President Johnsons proclamation of the
fact.
The Court took different view of the
law, and held that the contract was good
unless the plaintiff received currency in
ignorance of u fact materially affecting
its value. In this the testimony, as to
Lees surrender on the minds of the
people OF the section, was material At
the same time the ignorance must not
be voluntary ignorance, or that kind
Of quasi ignorance Of man who does
not use the sources of information ready
to hand. .n- ,.u ...r .4,5
If the plaintiff knew, or might have
known, all the material facts rendering
the currency worthless, or rather affect
ing IT'S value, when he took it, he could
not have rescinded the contract, and
could rot recover. IL otherwise, his de-
cision was valid and he was entitled to
the value of the cotton. Verdict for
dcfandant