Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1872-01-08
LAW REPORT.
The United States Circaff aRd District
Csurss-TrigEs Judge.

The United States Circaif RRd District
C0urGs-TrigEs Judge.
In the Circuit court Of the United States, sit
ting al Memphis, Tennessee, on saturday
the 9Th day OF January, 1872, Hon. COnnally
F Trigg, United states District Judge, pre-
siding.
James II. Mosby vs.. Isaac B. Kirkland.
The tacts in the case sre substantially
as follows: FroR the l7th TO the 23d day
of March, 1852, the plaintiff, who resided
in the State OF Kentucky, came 70 the city
OF Memphis, and having $3.50 in currency,
eonsisting OF Confederate treasury notes,
State Bank Of Tennessee notes, NCrth
Carolina, South Carolina and State Of
Georgia bank notes, Wss desiTOus Of con
Ysrting them into sterling exchsugs.
Through friend, h3 was Introduced to
to the descendant, 6 banker IN Memphis.
An arrangements wss soon made by
which ths defendant agreed to take the
currency Of the plaintiff and invest it
for himsif he could, in sterling exchange,
and a receipt was given TO that
effect. The defendant was not success
ful In purchasing the carrency before
the Federal forces occupied the city OF
Memphis, and in fact no such purchase
was ever made, the defendant sll the time
retaining the money deposited, or using il
in the course of his business. The defend
ant Eos accounting 70 plaintiff for the
amount so deposited with him, this suit
Bss instituted 70 compel the defendant to
pay over 20 the plaintiff the amount OF its
equivalent.
Ths declaration was In sssumpsjt with
special counts OF the receipt which was
given by defendant, and also a general
count In indebatibus assumpsit foE money
hsd and received.
Ths effect CT the war upon the country,
and the set Of congress Of lSsh JRly, 1861,
with the Presidents proclamation Issued
In pursuance tns1e0f, inhioiting ali CON-
nercisl intercourse between the citizsAs
Of the States declared il insuTTectiOn and
the citizens Of the rest Of the United
States, was mainly relied upon by the de-
fsnae 10 be relieved from the payment Of
the money. The court, Cn consideration
OF tbs evidence, charged the jury as fol
lows:
That by the act Of July, 1861.
and the proclamation OF the pres
ident Of the United States issued
In pursuance thereof, on the 16sh day Of
August, 1881, the State of Kentucky wss
not declared in insDrrectiOn, bUs that the
State Of Tennessee was Sc declared.
In this state OF tbs facts, t5s plaintiff
being q citizen Of the State Of kentucky,
and the defendant citizen Of the State Of I
Tennessee, they stood in the relation of /
pupiie enemies, and were prohibited By |
law from having sny commercial inter |
course with e2cn otneRi snd II in this |
state Of the cEse The plsinEia and defend |
ant negotiated for the purchase, by the /
defendant for the plaintiff OF sterling ex |
charge, such contract would be unlawful |
and could not be enforced in the courts Of i
lie United States,
The court further instructed the Jury /
that II the Confederate forces at the time i
o. the contract held and occupied thst /
portion Of KentGckyiin. which plsin.ih J g.
sided. snd that plsintlG by such OccupR-
tion was within the Lines end jurisdiction 1
OF the insurrecbiOnary forces, then and for 4
that time, and during said occupation the
plaintiff and defendent were under tee
same jurisdiction, snd for the time their
enemy relations were suspended, and In
this state Of facts the plaintiff and defend
ant might make q cOntrseJ ia relation TO
the an biect matter of the contract, snG in
this visW Of the case, the plsintiG being
capable of making the contract, Il would
not be Illegal and Ia violation cf the said
act of congress and the proclamation Of
the president made Ia pursuance OF the
SANS.
NE court further instructed the jury
that If the condition Of the two bslliger-
ents wss not as stated IN the preceding
bat that before, or ct the
time. the contract between the plain
til and defendant was made, the forces
Of the insGrrsotionists had Withdrawn
from the State of Kentucky, leaving
The plaintiff within the military oocu-
patton Of ths Federal forces, then at the
same point Of time when such last occu-
patton occurred, the plaintiff would be
restored to his former relations TO The
Fedsral government, and be and the de-
fsndant would resume their previous
attitude OF public sneEdfes, and could not
garry on any commerciai Transaction,
And tbs court further charged the jury
hat In either event stated In the pre-
,sding instructions, II they were satisfied
hat the plaintiff put into The hands Of tAe
defendant the sum Of money claimed by
him for the purpose Of investing Il In
Startling exchange, and that the defendant
never die make such an investment, but
continued to hold the funds 80 deposited
with him, that then the defendant became
md was, in relation to the plainti8, az q
mere trustee OF agent for the purpose Of
investing the funds, and maintained that
relation 80 long So ne retained the
unds placed in bis hands. And 20 pur-
,hsze Of exchange having been In fact
nsde. said funds remained and must
De- considered ss being held for the use of
be plaiptid and be would be entitled
q a vsrdicf for the same OF their equivs- |
snt IL zslus, and II the jury hod the
acts as above, they VIII return verdict
or the equivalent Of funds deposited as
OmpaEed with gold at the time when de-
sndant ought TO have made ths invest
nss,t IN sterliuR exchange, which should
q such reasonable time Is the jury should
eem proper IN view Of the evidence.
NE Jury may End for tbs plaintiff, allow
interest upon the amount ssc6ftsided to /
,s due from that time until the present If.
q their opinion Of ths circumstances OF
he case, any interest shoHld be allowed
The defendants took an spPeai TO the