The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1872-04-16

every iniirlnity Reconsideration to all the equi-
ties attaching to the instrument in the hands of
lie iafty TO whom it was executed. The only
| question, then, to be considered, is, What
did the parties mean by the words 'current
funds used in the several obligations exc
| cuted by the yendec? Did they intend to
provide for the payment of the money cir
| rent, whatever IL might be, at the maturity of
these obligations? or were they contracting
| with reference to Confederate money and its
probable continuance rs the circulating me-
dunn of the country! The question must
be decided. not alone by the language Of the
instrument, but by Il careful consideration Of
tll the facts and circumstances. That an in
diridual during the war, having urgent
need for Confederate notes. and Knowing
they would be useful to him in the payment
Of specie debts, might have been willing to
execute his obligation therefor, payable at Il
remote period, and incur all the risk of an
appreciation Of the currency, may be readily
imagined but it is difficult to believe that q
person possessed OF ordinary intelligence
would deliberately have encountered the
hazard of being required to pay $685. 900, with
the accumulated interest, in sound currency,
for attract ofland worth only 81, 900, whatever
nav have been his conviction of the result
of the struggle. Certainly, If the parties
looked forward to some other and more
valuable currency is a medium OF payment,
and mc;Slircd their agreement by al more per
.nancnt standard, that very consideration
must have had its influence on them III cst-
mating the price to bc paid for the property.
If we are permitted to speculate rs to their
views. we may reasonably suppose they ell
.ertained the opinions held by great ma
iority of the people. They probably antici-
patcd an early triumph Of the Confederate
clllsc, and rs !. necessary result marked aI-
probation of Confederate money"
The learned Judge then shows from the
evidence that this contract was made on the
basis of Confederate money rs the medium
of payment, and says: "a contract of this
sort is substantially the same aS Il contract to
pay in Confederate notes. 1t is Il contract
according to the real understanding of the
parties, entered into with reference to such
notes rs Il standard Of value and to he full
illcd in the like medium. The extended credit
-iven would indicate in such case, not that the
vendor expected payment i'll coin or lawful
money of the United States, but that COntcde-
rate currency would be less deprecated when
the day OF payment arrived. In this view
the stipulation in relation to current funds
may be readily explained as intended to eX-
cluGc the idea of all agreement to pay III
coin" The Judge then shows the
application of this reasoning to this case
from the action Of Fondren and Griffin III re-
ccying payment of the other notes before
they were due, when it Is not shown there
was any pressing necessity requiring them
10 do so. And he then shows from the evil
,tencc the true understanding Of the parties.
It was insisted that this evidence contradicted
the written instrument. As to this the Judge
SAYS: "Wcrc this so, >.lch evidence would be
still legitimate. As the statute authorizes
either party to show by Erol or othcrrelevant
testimony what was the true understanding,
either EXPRESSED or to be implied in respect
to the kind of currency in which the con-
tract w;ts to be fulfilled, such evidence does
moi modify or alter the written agreement.
As was said in Thorington rs. Smyth, S Wall,
il simply explains an ambiguity which, un-
der ,hc general rules Of evidence, may be re-
moved l,y ieirol. /; enables the court simply
TO Interpret the written terms according to
the real intent and agreement of the parties,
and to understand what was meant by the
words they employed"
Judge STAPLES then discusses the case Of
TAYLOR as. I'urlcy, 30, Maryland r., 800, re-
Gently decided, with reference to this case.
The note in that case WAS executed i'll Ten
ilcs.ce III February, 1SG@, payable two years
after date in "c,lrrent bankablc funds, at Il
period OF the war when at one time thd&on-
irdcrutcs were in aSr"-f fancy, and ut another
the Fcderals, in that section. -Four judges in a
court of seven held that the note there WAS
now to be paid in United States currency.
judge Staples says that us there was no such
strug.l>. for the lScrni;.ncy by the contendng
armies where and when the note in this case
was executed. IL different rule should govern
this ease and after stating that the opera
tious of the Government and almost all
the transactions OF the people here were then
conducted through the medium Of Con-
fcJerate notes. he then says: 1t is certainly
reversing the order of things to. presume
that ,mrtics contracting with reference to the
prevailing currency contemplated payment
in some other unknown and more valuable
medium. no such presumption results ne
cc>SaIily from the use OF the words current
funds There is no magic in these words
no LEGAL import attached TO them /; Their pro-
per interpretation depends upon the time
| when and the circumstances under which
! they are used Judge Staples then
shows how the Supreme Court Of the
United States has divested the word "dol-
larn of its long-established meaning and
explained its meaning by the light of sur
rounding circumstances, without the aid OF
any such statute is we have. He then says
Most persons are willing to concede that an
OBLIGATION executed in 1868 or 1864 for the
Dayment Of dolldrS, although payable ut re-
| mote period, is TO be considered Confederate
contract when founded on Il loan OF Contede'
rate notes ora sale Of property at Confederate
prices In such case they agree that the par
| lies meant the dollars i'll circulation when the
contract is naadc, and not when it natures ;;
but if the words current funds and the like
| words are inserted, something else was intend
ed OF wholly different character. In that case
! if is a contract Of hazard, Il speculation upon
the currency, aud the duration Of the waI
WAS intended and upon this arbitrary rule OF
| INTERPRETATION the unfortunate purchaser OF
borrower is overwhelmed with a debt not
seriously contemplated by either Of the par
tics. 1t seems to me the most just and rea'
sonablc Interpretation is TO consider the
words MS simply intended III such cases to
guard against any contingency OF an obllsa-
! ton to pay conn., Judge Sta-
Dies then considers Boulware Us. New
| ton, is Graft, 10S, and kraker Us. Shields,
20 Graft. 37S, relied on by the appellants,
and shows the difference between those cases
and this. lie then says: "ln the present case
| the real value OF the land does not exceed
six thousand dollars, while the agreed value
| was thirty thousand dollars. Does any one
suppose that the purchaser would have enter
| cd into this contract if the vendor here, as in
.Krakcr Us. Shields had informed him twas
his determination not to receive payment
until the maturity of the respective bonds,
and then to require itin gold, ifthat should be
the circulating medium?" Judge Staples
| then shows tint the proof in this case eStab-