Year: 1868

that of prompt payment in like currency to
such stockholders as were in q situation to
receive such payment, and payment as soon
as practicable in currency of equivalent
value to such as we're resident in States
intercourse with which was, at the time,
not only cut off by the civil war, but was
also interdicted by the Congress of the
United States. ..- --.-..-.


In the case Of Shortridge Us. Macon it
was held that the accrual of interest upon
note for certain sum and interest was
not suspended by the rebellion. The di7i-
dends in the present case are in different
predicament. Dividends are only payable
on demand, and it is agreed in this case that
there was no demand until the filing Of the
bill. Interest, therefore, Gun only be al
lowed from that date.


We shall decree, therefore, that the re-
spondents pay to the complainants the divi-
dends declared upon the stock of their in
testate with interest from November %,
1866. The amount of the several dividends
at the several dates when made will be COM
puted by deducting such per centage as will
reduce them to equal value in lawful money,
and interest on the aggregate amount viii
be cast from November %, 1866, to this
late at six per cent. and decree will be
entered for the sum thus ascertained. The
computations may be made by the counsel
or by master, as they may prefer.


? ~ 4 1 .-----------


UsURY CASE BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE
CHAsE-IMPoRTANT DECTsIoN.-Most of the
day was occupied yesterday in the United
States Circuit Court in hearing the case of
Douglas II. Gordon Us. John Clark and David
A. Claiborne. 1t was an action on a negotia-
bic note, jury waived and judgment rem
dered by the Court. The defence turned
on the plea of usury and the suficiency Of
notice Of protest to the endorser.


The plea Of usury was under the Virgil
MIA statute. 1t was coutended by defend
ants that the law of Virginia should govern
the construction of the contract. Chief JUS
tice Chase held otherwise. The note sued
on being negotiable note, dated Baltimore
and payable at Baltimore, and the proof
also being that the said note was negotiated
or sold to the plaintiff at the place where
made and where payable, on the question
of the Ter loci contrdCt1Ls, the Chief Justice
announced that it was unnecessary for the
plaintiff g counsel to address the Court, the
contract being so plainly a Maryland and
not Virginia contract. But the court in
vited the counsel of defendants to sustain
by argument their position that the note in
question was Virginia contract.


The notice Of protest was directed to the
endorser at scottsburg, Halifax county, Va,
and it being proved BY John Clark, the
maker of the note sued on, that Wolf Trap
and not Scottsburg was the usual postofice
of the endorser at the time of the protest,
the question arose as to whether the motion
was properly directed; !; but the Court held
that the admissions of the endorser con-
tanned in letters of his, written shortly af-
terwards, which letters were dated at Scotts-
burg, to the effect that he had received the
notice of protest, were conclusive against
him upon the question of suficiency of no
tce. On this branch of the case there were
other minor facts in evidence which we
deem it unnecessary to mention.


After argument on both sides, as well
upon the law Of the contract as upon notice
of protest, judgment was rendered for the
plaintiff for $500, with interest from No
vember Is, 1867, till paid, and the costs,
the law of Maryland on the subject of usury
being applied to the contract. That law
merely purges the contract of any usurious
excess, even as against guilty usurer
whilst in favor Of an innocent holder for
valuable consideration without notice of any
usury either in the inception or assignment
of note las the plaintiff was proved to be
in this case), it declares that the defence OF
usury shall not be available.