Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-08
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
December Term - Nashville,
1870.
Joseph b. HeiskeIIs AttOrneY-Gen-
eral and Reporter. 80
Joseph Boyle VS.. O. A. Hammons ct al.

...H....-a OriNlON.
The complainant executed a deed of
conveyance, bearing date 9Th December,
1852, TO Larkin w. and Elijah r. Ham
mons, minor children of G. A. Ham
mons, for the tract of land therein de-
scribed, situate in Cannon county, and
containing 65 acres and two rods, more
or less, by estimation, as stated in said
deed, for the consideration of nine hun
dred dollars, of which amount the deed
recites that eight hundred dollars had
been paid, and the balance of one hun
dred dollars secured by the note of G. A.
HammOns to the said L. W.. aud E. r.
Hammons, due and payable 25th Deem
Der, 1868, and for the payment of which
lien is retained on the face of the deed.
The payment of eight hundred dollars
was made in Confederate treasury notes;
and the object of the original bill, filed
oath April, 1866, and of the amended
bill, filed 14th March, 1858, when con-
sidered together, is, in brief, to have the
deed annulled for failure of consideration
and because it is alleged that the same
was obtained by fraud and duress.
1t appears from the record that
during the late civil war, and
up to the time of the execution
of said deed, Cannon county was in pos
session, or subject to the control, of the
Confederate Military forces, and that the
following order, issued by military off,
Ger in command, was printed as a circu-
lar or hand-bill, and generally posted
throughout the country, viz:
HEADQUARTERS CAVALRY BRIGADE,
MoMNNvnLE, July %, 1861. Any per-
son who shall refuse to receive Confed-
crate money, or shall say, or write, anything
to depreciate the same, shall be subject
to fine and Imprisonment or confsca-
ton of property, either or both, as the
nature of the case may indicate. The
asking of exorbitant prices for goods, or
the commodities of life, such as would
indicate a want of confidence in Confed-
crate money, is prohibited, and any per-
son so offending, shall be subject to fine
and imprisonment and confiscation of
property, either or both, as the nature of
the case may indicate.
~ 'eN. B. FORREST,
''Brig. Gen. Commanding Brigade"
This order, it seems, was actively cir
culated throughout the country, and oc-
casionally enforced, through the soldiery,
by threats and arrests; and, for fear of the
consequences, many persons received Con-
federate notes who would not otherwise
have done so. According 20 the weight
of evidence, the complainant was Union
man, and G. A. HammOns Rebel, who
had been hired as a substitute in the
Confederate army. Hammons, expect
ing to be soon put upon active duty and,
perhaps, to be engaged in the then ap-
preaching battle of Murfreesboro, be,
came anxious to purchase the complain
ants land and to have it conveyed to his
children, either to protect it against his
creditors or to provide for the possible
contingency of his early death. Certain
parol negotiations occurred between him
and the complainant, from which it was
manifest that the complainant, who was
somewhat embarrassed in his circum-
stances, was quite unwilling to receive
Confederate notes in payment, yet fear
full to risk the consequences of direct
and positive refusal HammOns, on the
other hand, was equally determined to
avail himself of the well grounded ap-
plCuOuoLOL5 VI " bdhC dl-
vantage of the circumstances which sur
rounded him, and to extort from his
fears, conveyance Of the land. Having
received one thousand dollars, in Confed-
crate notes, either for his services as q
substitute, or as an agent to purchase
hogs, he invested a portion of the
money, in that way, and told one of the
witnesses, in substance and with an oath,
that complainant had agreed to sell him
the land and that he would compel him to
do so. He went to the house of COM
plalnant, who was engaged at the time in
shOemsking, and proposed to give nine
hundred dollars for the land 10 Confede-
rate money. Complainant refused to take
it. In the language of the witnesses,
Hsmmons, ''then pulled out eight hun
dred dollars in Confederate money and
laid it on the lapboard." Complainant
told him not to lay his money down
there until he ssw further about it. De-
PENDANT remarked that if they were going
to make the trade, then was the time to
make it; said repeatedly that, if the money
did not answer all purposes, he would
take it back, or make it as good as gold
and silver; and, after he LAID the money
upon the lapboard, observed that eff a
man refused to take this Confederate
money, Just report him to Gen. Forrest,
and he would hang him four feet from
the ground" He went off and left the
money lying upon the lapboard; and the
complainant, afterwards executed the
deed. 1t does not clearly appear how
long the fears of complainant, thus pro-
duced, existed before signing the deed,
but one of his daughters proves that these
fears continued "a right smart while-a
month or two" and that Hammons kept
making his threats as long as he was
soldier, which was about that length of
time. This witness states that she stayed
with Hammons' wife about five weeks,
"while he was a soldering" and that
while she remained there, he came home,
every day with the exception of one week
during which he remained away. One
witness who does not appear to be related
to either of the parties, proves that, in the
| fall of 1862, he, the witness, was "back
ward about taking Confederate money and
| Col. Hardy said to me (him) if you re-
fuse to take that money, will carry you
| to headquarters quicker than you ever
went, and the penalty for refusing Con-
| federate money is, they hang them four
feet clear from the ground" Another
witness proves that the cavalry, belong
ing chiefly to Forests and Morgan's COM
mands were Ground there" in 1862; that
they were passing through the country
Frequently, every few days" and made
threats that if the people refused to take
Confederate money, Forrest would either
COnfiscate their property or take them off
ard hang them. Yet another witness
testiffes that he was present when
the order of Gen. Forrest was
posted up; that he saw orders similar
to it, ''posted up around through the
country" that the soldiers who posted
the order did not say great deal about
it, but did say that "the orders were strict
and the people saw their doom if they
disobeyed them" Other witnesses
prove that there was q general state of
fear throughout the country; that the
people generally were afraid to refuse
Confederate money, and that they (the
witnesses) received it through fear
This part of the evidence was properly
objected to.
In the case of ROllings vs.. Cate, de-
termined at the recent term of the SUI
preme Court at Knoxville, we held that 8
mere general fear of offending the Con.