The Bolivar bulletin. [volume] (Bolivar, Hardeman County, Tenn.) 1865-1888, 1872-02-02
An IMPORTANT Law CASE.
The United States Circgit and Dis
trfeI Courts. Trigx Judge.

Ia the Circuit court of the United
States, sitting at Memphis, Tonnes
see, on Saturday the 9th day of jan
uary, 1872, Hon. Connally f. Trigg, |
United States District Judge, pre-
siding.
James II. AIosbyvs. Issaac B. Kirt-
land.
The facts in the case are substan-
tally as follows From the 18th to |
the 22d day of March, 1862, the
plaintiff, vino resided in the State of
KENTUCKY, came to the city Of Mem
phis, and having So, 260 in currency,
consisting of Confederate treasury
notes, State Bank of Tennessee notes,
North Carolina, South Carolina and
State of Georgia Bank notes, was de-
sirous of converting them into ster-
ling exchange. Through a friend, he
was introduced to the defendant, g
banker in Memphis. An arrange
ment was soon made by which the
defendant agreed to take the cur
reEcy of the plaintiff and invest it
for him if he could, in sterling ex-
change, and o receipt was given TO
that effect. The defendant was not
successful in purchasing the Curren-
cy before the Federal forces occupied
the city of Memphis, aud in fact no
such purchase was ever made, the
defendant all the time retaining the
money deposited, or using it in the
course of his business. The defend
ant not accounting to plaintiff for
the amount so deposited with him,
this suit was instituted to compel
the defendant to pay over TO the
plaintiff the amount or its equiYa-
lent.
The declaration was in assumpsit
with special counts on the receipt
which was given by defendant, and
also a general count in indications
assumpsit for money had and re-
ceived.
The effects of the war upon the
country, and the act of Congress of
18th of July, 1861, with the Presi-
dents proclamation issued in pursu-
ance thereof, inhibiting all CONNER
cial intercourse between the citizens
of the States in insurrection aud the
citizens of the rest of the United
States, was mainly relied upon by
the defense to be relieved from the
payment of the money. The court, on
consideration of the evidence, charg-
ed the jury as follows:
That by the act of July, 1851, and
the proclamation of the President Of
the United States issued in pursu-
ance thereo on the 18th day Of
August 1861, the Senate % Kentucy
was not declared in iusurrectjon, but
that the State Of Tennessee was so
declared.
In this state of the facts, the plain
tiff being a citizen of the State of
Kentucky, and the defendant q citi-
zen OF the State OF Tennessee, they
stood in the relation of public enc
mics, and were prohibited by law
from having any commercial inter
course with each other; and if in
this state of the case the plaintiff
aud defendant negotiated for the
purchase, by the defendant for the
plaintiff of sterling exchange, such
contract wonId be unlawful and
could not be enforced IN tbs courts
of the United States.
The court further instructed the
jury that ifAhe condition Of the two
belligeFents was not as stated 10 the
preceding instruction, but that be-
fore, or at the contract between the
plaintiff and defendant was made, the
forces Of the insur: ectiOnists had
Withdrawn from the State of Ken
lucky, leaving the plaintiff within
the military occupation of the Fed
eral forces, then at the same point of
time Whon such last occupation oC-
Cured, the plaintiff would be restored
to his former relations TO the Fed
eraT government, and he and the de-
fendant would resume their previous
attitude of public enemies, and could
not carry on any commercial trans
action.
The court further instructed the
jury that if the Confederate forces
at the time of the contract held and
occupied that portion of Kentucky
in which plaintiff resided, and that
plaintiff by such occupation was
within the lines and jurisdiction Of
the insurreCtioHary forces, then and
for that time, and during said ocCu-
patton, the plaintiff and defendant
were under the same jurisdiction,
and for the time their enemy relations
were suspended, and in This state of
facts the plaintiff and defendant
might make a contract In relation to
the subject matter of the contract,
aud in this view of the case, the plain
! tiff being capable OF making the con-
tract, il would not be illegal and in
violation of the said act of Congress
aud the proclamation of the Presi-
dent made in pUrsuan e OF the same.
And the court further charged the
jury that in either event stated III
the preceding instructions, if they
were satisfied that the plaintiff put
into the hands Of the defendant the
sum of money claimed by him for
the purpose of investing it IN ster-
ling exchange, and that the defend
ant never did make such an invest
ment, but continued to hold the
funds so deposited with him, that
then the defendant became and
was, in relation to the plaintiff, as
mere trustee or agent for the purpose
of investing thG funds, and maintain
ed that relation as long as he retained
the funds placed III his hands. And
no purchase of exchange having
been i'm fact made, said funds remain
ed and must be considered as being
held for the Hse of the plaintiff and
he would be entitled to a verdict for
the same or their equivalent in value,
and If the jury find the facts as
above, they viii return a YER
dict for the equivalent of funds
deposited as compared with gold at
the time when defendant ought to
have made the investment in ster-
ling exchange, which should be such
reasonable time as the jury should
deem pr oper in view of the evidence.
The jury may find for the plaintiff, al
low interest upon the amount as
certained to be due from that time
until the present if, in their opinion
OF the case, any interest should be
allowed.
The defendants took an appeal to
the United States Supreme Court.