Case Name: John M'Nairy vs. M. Bell
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1831-01
Citations: 1 Yer. 502
Docket Number: 
Parties: John M’Nairy vs. M. Bell.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 9
Pages: 502–503

Head Matter:
John M’Nairy vs. M. Bell.
Nashville,
January, 1831.
Where,by the terms of a contract,bank notes at par value are to he paid, a plea of tender of bank notes, must aver they were of par value at the time of tender.
A contract to pay interest from the date of a note, if it is not punctually paid when it becomes due, is not unlawful or usurious.
When a note is payable at a particular place, there is no necessity, as against the maker, to present the note for payment at the place.
In such ease if the defendant was ready to pay at the place and continued ready, he may plead it by way of tender, and it will bar accruing interest, but not the debt.
Covenant from Davidson circuit court. This was an action of covenant brought by thé defendant in error, Bell, as assignee &c. against M’Nairy, upon an obligation executed by M’Nairy and others, in which they “promised four years thereafter to pay John G. Meaux or order at Nashville $5,150 00 in good current bank notes, such as will be received in deposit in the Nashville bank, or the bank of Kentucky, and such as will pass at par at the time of payment; if not paid when due the same to draw interest from the date.”
The defendant pleaded, that on the day the note fell due, part of the money was paid and the residue, specifying it, he tendered in bank notes, such as would be received in deposit in the bank of Kentucky or in the Nashville bank, but the plea did not aver, the bank notes were of par value; to this plea there was a demurrer and join-der.
The plaintiff’s declaration did not aver demand of payment in Nashville.
The circuit court overruled the demurrer, and gave judgment against the defendant, from which, he appealed in error to this court.
T. Washington, for the plaintiff in error.
F. B. Fogg, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Opinion of the court delivered by
Judge Catron.
1st. We are of opinion that the plea of tender is bad, because it does not aver that the bank notes tendered were of par value; this is the undoubted meaning of the covenant.
2d. The contract, that the note if not paid when due, should bear interest from the date, was lawful, neither tainted with usury, nor in violation of sound policy, 15 Mass. Rep. 177. 1 Bibb's Rep. 242.
3d. There was no necessity for presentment at the time the note fell due, although it was made at Nashville, 8 Mass. Rep. 480. 10 Wheaton 175. 17 John. Rep. 248. So this court has several times decided. If the defendants were in fact ready to pay at the day and place and continued ready, this was matter for a plea with the money brought into court, when the plaintiff would bead-judged to receive the money, pay the costs, and would not have been entitled to interest by way of damages; to this the tender is a bar, not to the debt. 1 Lord Ray. 254. 17 John 253. The judgment must be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.