Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1875-12-10

Is, CONFEDERATE MONEY CONTACTS
The Court of Appeals of Virginia,on Friday
last decided the case.of Judge David Fultz
of Staunto vs. RobtsC. Davis of Nelson
The facts Of the case may be briefly stated
as follows:
On the 18th, of April, 1882. Robert G.
Davis borrowed from Judge David Fuitz
SEVEN thousand dollars in Confederate mo-
ney, and execut ed his boz d Therefor. paya-
Die six, years after date in current money
of Virginia. tn Interest payable, every six
MONTHS. Davis lat the. same time gave a
deed of trust upon his real estate to secure
the payment, of tile debt. u Various pay
ments were made by Davis both during
and after the close7o the war. The trus-
tee having bydlrecbion of eFultz advertised
to sell the property to satisfy tile nominal
amount of the bond. Davis applied for and
obtained an Injunction. TIE points are
stated ir the opinion of the COURT A.so
The court held Judge Staples delivering
the opinion) tAat tile CONTRACT was entered
into with reference to Confederate Treas
i,ry notes. aS "a standard OF gvalue. The
debtsmust therefore be scaled Unless it was
madestp appear that according to the true
understanding of the parties it WAS to be
discharged in some better and more valra-
Die currency 9E IL
The only evidence in the case upon whic!;
the appellant relied as the bond which
was payable in ''curreut money of Wiz
ginia.'' Neither the language of the bond
nor the evidence owed that either party
contemplated d contract of hazard z All
the facts and circumstances established
very clearly tina neither lender nor Dor
&c Wer had special reference to tie kind Of
cure .cy ia Whicigltle debt was. to be paid
Tie Circuit Cuu9t did not, therefore, err
in holding that the contract was {, Ctmftd-
crate transaction, subject to the scale OF
depreciation. We, devnet undertake : to
give, nor is Unnecessary to repeat, the
views aud arguments by which Judge Sta
pies fortified his opinion IN this branch OF
TIE case "a - - - -
"a TIE court further held that the pay
ments made 10y tie obIigor between 1866
and 1869, in United States currency, could
not be scaled to the gol:t standard, al
though the debt itself had BEEN scaled to
that standard. The creditor having co :
scented to receive tic currency AS money
it operated necessarily pro taf,to as in ex-
tingushinent of the debt The court
could not enter into the motives or reasons
| which may have prompted the creditor IT,
accept payment ina currency deprecated
| below the gold standard. All that can be-
safely done is to add the premium t., the
gold value. of-the debt, and then o.deduct
the payments from the aggregate, amount
thus ascpitained.
The court further held that interest is
not stosbe allowed the debtor on his pay
lnents, but int rest is to be.cnmputed on
the debt, and the payment to besdedncted
from tine sum of principal and interest
Nor was the creditor en- titled to compoun,
| interest. He might have collected his in.
| terest at the expiration of every six months
| as provided by his contract, but having
failed to do so e,eannet now convert that
interest into principal SO as to make it al
! interest bearing fund. a
| a For The errors the decree of tina Circuit
| Court was reversed.