Court Opinion

ID: 6501753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 18:14:35.766702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:54:37.892707
License: Public Domain

COLLIER, C. J.
The questions raised by the demurrer to the evidence are — 1. Was not the writing produced at the trial a *141sealed instrument? 2. Was the plaintiff entitled to recover the full amount of the sum expressed on its face, without reference to the value of Alabama currency?
1. By the act of the 2d February, 1839, it is enacted, “That all cqvenants, conveyances,' and all contracts in writing, which import on their face to be made under seal, shall be taken, deemed and held to be sealed instruments, and shall have the same effect as if the seal of the party or parties were affixed thereto, whether there be a scroll to the name of such party or parties or not.”
Previous to the passage of this act, it was necessary, in order to constitute a sealed instrument, not only that it should appear from the body of the writing that the parties intended thus to characterize it, but it was also necessary to accompany its execution with a scroll, or some other indicium of a seal. [Lee v. Adkins, Minor’s Rep. 187.] The only change in the law proposed to' be effected by the statute, was to dispense with a scroll or its equivalent, and to make the recognition of the parties in the body of the paper that it was sealed, impart to it' the dignity of a deed.
2. The note does not stipulate for the payment of a debt in Bank bills, but is an undertaking to pay “ current money of the State of Alabama.” It is true that an infinite variety of commodities have been used as money in different periods and countries, [2 McC. Com. Dic. 193,] and in common parlance all these different representations of the common standard of value, have been designated as money. But the notes of the Banks which are not redeemable in coin, on demand, cannot, with any propriety be regarded as such; in fact the best Bank paper, passes as money by consent only, and it cannot be otherwise so long as the inhibition of the Federal Constitution upon the rights of the States to dispense with gold and silver as the only lawful tender continues in force.
It results from this view, that the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.