The New York herald., 1877-01-09
The Rebellion as Vitiating Southern
Partnership Contracts.
TOUGH QUESTION FOR THE COURTS.
Gold Dealers in the Gold Exchange Amen.
able TO All Its Rules.
The Public Administrator IN q
Dilemma.

The uuplsasantness between the North and tho
south and the eliminating four years war has Of ne
esssty led TO good deal OF litigation, and another
painfully dsagrceabe feature Is that when the recov-
cry money Is the pivotal point OF such suits the
interest meantime has sweIed the original claim TO
moro Titanic magnitude suit growing out OF tho
OF the rebellion and involving the particular ques
tton one OF quito far reaching interest as TO the
validity OF contracts made during the late rebellion
before the Non-lntcrcOursc act, came up Tor Irlal
yesterday before Judge Van Worst holding su
prcme Court Circuit. The action Is brought by tho
President ard directors OF the Bank OF louisiana, IN
New Orleans against W Iliiam Brenner and others In
April, 1851, deed OF partnership was executed 0y de-
Orleans. Tho hrm got note discounted in the bank
Tor S5O0 OF which II IS Claimed there remains -
unpaid, which, alter renewals up to 1862. SUIT has
been brought 70 recover payment by the bank Since
Ihc last renewal the note, together with interest,
amounts TO $40 400. The case has bceu ever since
pending, awaiting decision 0i cases by the United
States Court which have been decided against
ME Mathews tne oniy VINO Tor ,,s as
nred upon april 49, and Mr. Mathews IN his de-
fence says that he was resident o the state OF New
York when the war broke out, and that all contracts
between Northern aud Southern citizens became vod
from that time. The plaintiffs, however, rely ON dc.
csion OF the United States Supreme Court that until
the proclamation President Lincoln August IT, 1851,
under the Non-intercourse act all contracts between
citizens ol Northern and southern States remained IN
tact. Mr.. Divine appears Tor the plaintiffs and Mr
Sherwood tor the defendants The trial promises 10
occupy two or three days.
RULES OF THE GOLD EXCHANGE.
decision was given yesterday by Judge Barrett
showing the important TACT that when parties make
contracts for purchase sale OF gold In the Gold
Exchange rooms and agree to be governed by tho
rules OF the Gold Board such contracts be legally
enforced although tho contracting parties not men,
bers OF the Gold Board This decision gwen in the
SUIT brought by George l.. Chadwell assignee OF
George Q. Jones against Jay Could and others and
grows out OF transactions on the memorable Black
Friday, which occasion Jay Gould and his allies in
getting up corner in gold figured so prominently and
from which they came out SO dsastrousy defeated II
alleged that Mr. Jones purchased 500 OO0 worth OF
gold on the 23d OF September, 1860, 10 be de-
livered on the ensuing day, and tor which
he was to be paid $71,Sl2 53 in currency
The contract made the New York Gold Board
and The agreement that the transactoa should DO
In accoidancc with the rules OF the Gold Exchange
which rules required that II member laiis to fuh his
contract purchase sell gold the other party might
employ OF the officers TO sell or purchase ana then
pay over tho surplus require the deficiency as the
case might be. AS Mr.. Gouid and his CO. contractors
refused the next day 10 accept the gold The same
$685. OOO being the highest price that could
be obtained tor The SUIT l0r $3.50 difference.
A demurrer was intcrposed, on the ground that the
complaint did state sufficient causes Of action.
Tho following Is Judge Barretts opinion, and which,
as will be seen, Is short, sharp and decsive:-
II seems only 10 that the rules OF the
Cold Exchange were part OF the contract and that
sue sale made in strict conformit! to those rules.
The rules, It Is true, were made lor members; Dut
when those who are not members engraft such rules
upon contracts they cannot escape their effect
the plea OF membership. As 10 notice,
II IL not required by the rule. The complaint
IL, therefore, 10 viewed simply though It
avorred that in Of breach The opposite party
might employ one OF the officers Of the Board to
purchase aud SELL &C. aud thst the defendants being
guilty oil breach, the plaintiffs assignee did employ
Of such officers, who accordingly did sell, &C. In
Keep Gould the effect Of the rule discussed
nor IL there anything in the opinion TO Indicate that
the rule was pleaded The demurrer should therefore
be owe ruled upon the merits, but as there somo
clerical errors in the complaint which justified the
demurrer there should, reed upon the argument,
be Judgment for the defendants without COSTS with
leave TO The plaintiff to amend his complaint within
twenty days, without costs.