Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Thomas_v._City_of_Richmond
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:56:04+00:00

Document:
'SECTION 15. All members of any association, or company, that shall trade or deal as a bank, or carry on banking without authority of law, and their officers and agents therein, shall be confined in jail not more than six months, and fined not less than $100, nor more than $500.
'SECTION 16. Every free person,  who, with intent to create a circulating medium, shall issue, without authority of law, any note or other security, purporting that money or other thing of value is payable by, or on behalf of, such person, and every officer and agent of such person therein, shall be confined in jail,' &c.
In this state of things the city of Richmond, in April, 1861, upon the breaking out of the rebellion, passed an ordinance for the issue by the city of $300,000, of corporation notes of $2, $1, 50 cents, and 25 cents; and the notes were accordingly issued; the city receiving in exchange the bank notes of the State then in circulation, between which and gold the difference at the time, compared with what it became subsequently, was small; five per cent. to ten per cent.
On the 19th March, 1862, and the 29th of the same month and year, a so-called 'legislature of Virginia,' the body being composed of representatives from parts of the State in rebellion against the Federal government, passed an act, by whose language the issue of the sort of notes in question was made valid, and the city obliged to redeem them.
2d. That the said notes were not made valid or recoverable by the acts of the 19th March, 1862, and 29th March, 1862, or either of them, because the said acts were passed by a legislature not recognized by the United States, and in aid of the rebellion.
The court accordingly gave judgment for the defendant. To review that judgment the case was brought here by the plaintiff.
1. Under the powers which the city of Richmond had, by its charter, it might receive from those who would lend or advance it, the amount now in question, and might agree to refund it.
But if this were otherwise, prior enactments against small notes is repealed, by the act of March 19th, 1862, so far as in conflict therewith; and by the latter there is a release of forfeitures and penalties incurred before its passage; neither is there anything in Texas v. White,  which should prevent the latter act having full effect.
Mr. John A. Meredith, contra, for the city.
^1 By the express provision of the enactment the word 'person' includes corporation.
^2 Chapter 54 of the code of 1849, p. 282, was followed by the act of March 30th, 1852 (Session Acts, p. 259), and the act of March 18th, 1861 (Ib. 153).
^3 Sessions Acts, 1852, p. 265, § 46; 1861, p. 169, § 75.
^4 Bousfield v. Wilson, 16 Meeson & Welsby, 188; and see Brooks v. Martin, 2 Wallace, 81.
^5 4 Robinson's Practices, ch. 87, 88, 89, p. 547, et seq.
^6 Barjeau v. Walmsley, 2 Strange, 1249.
^7 Robinson v. Bland, 2 Burrow, 1081; and see Sutton v. Toomer, 7 Barnwall & Cross (14 English Common Law), 416; Utica Insurance Company v. Scott, 19 Johnson, 6; Same plaintiff v. Kip, 8 Cowen, 24.
^8 Harris v. Runnels, 12 Howard, 84; Sortwell, &c. v. Hughes, 1 Curtis, 247.

References: v. 
 § 46
 § 75
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.