Howard v. . Beatty
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Civil action, tried before Mitchell, /., at Spring Term 1870 of Catawba Court. Tbe plaintiffs complained on account of tbe non-payment of a bond executed by tbe defendant to tbe feme plaintiff, payable at twelve months, ‘‘in current money,” and dated April 3d 1865; upon this was endorsed, “credit by one note of Freeman Howard for two hundred and two dollars and twenty-five cents, to be paid in gold or silver or its value in currency dated January 1st 1866, this 12th March…
Read the full summary
Civil action, tried before Mitchell, /., at Spring Term 1870 of Catawba Court. Tbe plaintiffs complained on account of tbe non-payment of a bond executed by tbe defendant to tbe feme plaintiff, payable at twelve months, ‘‘in current money,” and dated April 3d 1865; upon this was endorsed, “credit by one note of Freeman Howard for two hundred and two dollars and twenty-five cents, to be paid in gold or silver or its value in currency dated January 1st 1866, this 12th March 1869.” It appeared that tbe defendant, as executor of one Mille-gan, in February 1864, bad sold certain lands to Elisha…
1Opinion of the CourtSettle, J.
The bond upon which this action was brought, was executed on the third day of April 1865, flagrante hello, and is, therefore, embraced by the legislation which declares, that the presumption shall be that money contracts of that date are solvable in Confederate money. But it is contended that no such presumption can arise in this case, because the parties fixed, in the bond, the currency in which it was to be discharged, to-wit: “ current money.”
Suppose the promise had been, to pay five hundred and thirteen dollars in currency, leaving out the word money. We think that it would clearly have…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Brickell v. . BellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- Davis v. . Glenn .Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1875
- Johnson v. . MillerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1877