Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-11-20
The Opinion In the McVeish Case,

LIE OpinlOn III lie MctelEh Case.
Judge Anderson yesterday delivered the
opinion OF the Supreme Court of Appeals 10
the case OF James II. McV eigh and son and
William N. Nov eigh ". The Bank Of the Old
Dominion, OF Alexandria. There were many
polnis III the case OF special interest to the
legal profession; but the great question Was
one of commercial AID international law, and
which arose under circumstances of peculiar
and almost unprecedented character. 10 the
spring of 1861 James H. McV egh and son
made, and W. N. McVeigh endorsed numer.
Gus notes, which were discounted at the Bank
Of the Old Dominion, in Alexandria, where all
the parties resided, amounting to large sum
OF money. On the 24tb Of May, 1861 after
the war, bad become fragrant betw en- the
United States aud the Confaderste States, t,
which latter Virginia was then allied, and the
day after the people Of Virginia ratified the
ordinance OF secession at the polls, tae Federal
| army invaded Virginia aud captured the city
OF Alexandria. A few days thereafter the Nc
Weighs "ent through the Federal lines into the
interior Of Virginia. and remained within the
| Confederate lines during the war.
ln July, August, and September following
the several nutes fell due according to their
tuce, tenor, and effect. and demand was made
at the said bank, at which they we're payable,
when payment was refused, aud the notes were
protested, and notices of protest were served
by leaving copy of the same with white
person at the residence Of the endorser, W. n.
McVeigh, or at the said bank, of which he had
beeu president, and where had been his place
| OF business.
| This suit was an action of debt brought by
the back against the makers and cndorser of
the notes, and Judgment was given the bauk
4 R,tyf hn Imam 49, 4
The McVeghs appealed.
1t was contended by the counsel for the
bank in the first place that notice of protest to
the endorser was excused because of his de-
parture from the city of Alexandria, which
rendered actual notice impossible, aud that the
notice given was sufficient.
1t was contended for the McFeighs that I'D.
on the invasion of Virginia by the Fed eral ar.
mics it was their legal right aud duty to ad-
here to their allegiance to their native Stat Of
Virginia. Therefore that no blame could be
attached to them tor escaping from alexandria
alter the capture OF the city aud going iuto the
Interior OF Virginia, within the Confederate
Ines, aud there remalnlog, aud that by so do
iDg they occupied position of lawful enmity
towards the bank 10 Alexandria when the notes
fell due; and that by the laws of war all COM
mercla! Intercourse between enemies is pro.
hlblted, aud all execut ,ry contracts made be-
fore the war suspended, aud that, therefore,
when the notes fell due 90 legal demand could
be made for their payment by the bank, aud of
course, there could be no notices of protests
Tor non payment, and consequently that the
demand, protests, and note OF protests serv.
ed as above mentioned were simple uullities
and that III point ct fact the notes did not fall
due until after the war, when demand should
bave been made within reasonable time, and
II payment had not been made there nigh
have been lawful protests and notices of pro-
| tests.
Judge Anderson. without deciding anything
as to the legality Of the ordinance of secession
which he deemed unnecessary, in an elaborate
opinion, citing and reviewing many decisions
of the Supreme Courts of the United States
and Virginia, and other courts, in substance
sustained the views of the counsel of the Nc
Weighs, and held that the demand, protests
and notices OF protests, were utilities, and that
therefore the eudorser, w. N. McVeigh, was
discharged from all liabilities to the bank, and
that the judgment OF the court below must be
reversed
| The president of the court, Judge Moncure,
delivered an opinion which occupied nearly
TWO hours 10 the reading, 10 which be dissent
ed and gave his grounds of dissent, He dis.
cussed many points Of great interest t. the pro-
fessoD.
Judge Christian agreed substantially with
Judge Moucure.
Judge Staples coucurred 10 the main 10 the
opiuion OF Judge Anderson, aud expressed his
views orally 10 confirmation Of the main point
Of his opinion.
Judge Bouldin emphaticaly expressed his
concurrence in the opinion OF Judge Anderson
| liz omnibus, as be said.
This litigation is understood to have involved
in amount McVegh's estate recovered from
the Underwood robbery, and indeed all that he
possessed 10 the world.
Mr.. II. o. Claughon argued the case for
the bank, aud Messrs. S. T. Bach, James Al.
tired Jones. and John Howard for the Me-
Weighs. -Rtchnaond Dispatch