Blackburn v. . Brooks , 65 N.C. 413 ( 1871 )

Dick, J.

This is a motion for judgment upon a bond given at a judicial sale. Rev. Code, ch. 31, sec. 128.

The bond was executed on the 23d of November, 1864, and comes within the operation of the statute of 1866, chap. 39.

The terms of sale which were made known to the defendants, rebuts the presumption created by the statute, and makes the bond solvable in wndejyreciated money. The meaning of this contract is a question of law, and must be construed according to the intent and understanding of the parties, at the time when it was executed. At that time coin had virtually ceased to be a circulating medium, and there were several kinds of depreciated paper currency, which differed greatly in value. If the property had been sold for coin it would not have brought its full value. The disturbances of the times had greatly deranged financial matters, and coin had a fictitious value, and could not be obtained without much difficulty. The purpose of the vendor, who was an officer of the Court, was to secure himself and the partiés interested in the proceeds of the sale, against payment in the depreciated currency of the country. If his purpose was to demand gold or silver, fa® ought, in common fairness, to have so declared in his terms of sale.

We conclude, after considering the facts in the case in connection with the circumstances of the times, that 'the understanding between the parties was, that payment was to be made in money of par legal value, and not at a discount in the ordinary commercial and business transactions of the country.

Money is a representative of value, established by law, and made a legal tender in the payment of debts. In this country we now have two hinds of money, i. e./coin and treasury notes, but, in contemplation of law, they are of equal value in the payment of private debts. Treasury notes may therefore be regarded in the payment of this bond as “ undepreciated money” and as the holder received the nominal amount and interest in treasury notes, the bond was satisfied and discharged, and judgment ought not to have been Tendered fur any premium, as on a special contract.

There was error.

Per Curiam. Judgment reversed