Citation Numbers: 70 N.C. 388
Judges: SETTLE, J.
Filed Date: 1/5/1874
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 4/15/2017
Of three notes sued upon in this action, two were for Confederate money, payable to Jones Bogle, and the other for $500, given to A. M. Bogle, dated 5th May, 1864; payable in Confederate currency; one was for $1,935, and dated 6th May, 1864; the other, dated the 7th August, same year, called for $1,200.
The bonds were issued to the plaintiff.
Defendant stated, that when he borrowed the money for (389) which the bonds were given, he informed Bogle Jones that he wanted the money to buy a forge, to make iron for the Confederate Government; that he was negotiating a purchase of the forge, and had to have the money to complete the trade; that he had sold his land on time, and his contract to make the iron rendered it necessary for him to have the money at once. Bogle Jones furnished him the money at different times; he bought the forge and furnished the Confederate Government with a quantity of iron.
Defendant further stated, that afterwards, as he was passing Jones' house, he informed him that his money was ready for him, and perhaps was on the way to him, and that Jones told him to turn the messenger *Page 319 back, if he, the defendant, met him, and not to send him the money, but to keep it and invest it for him, Jones, in land or other property; if he could not do this, to keep it until he, Jones, called for it. That he, the defendant, endeavored to invest it, but failed, and the money became worthless on his hands. After the war, Jones told defendant that he, himself, did not expect anything from defendant, but that Bogle would likely contend for it.
His Honor charged the jury, that if Bogle Jones knew that defendant was going to buy a forge with the money, for the purpose of making iron for the Confederate Government, the contract would be illegal and void, and that the plaintiff could not recover.
That the instructions given to defendant by Jones, as to the investment of the money in lands or other property, as deposed to by defendant, would be an appropriation of the money by Jones, and the plaintiff could not recover.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Appeal by plaintiff. The case presents two questions:
1. Are the bonds void?
2. If not void, have they been satisfied? (390)
I. The line between what contracts are void, because in aid of the rebellion, and what are not void for that cause, is distinctly marked by the decisions in this Court. In Martin v. McMillan,
(391) II. His Honor held that if the defendant was believed, the facts deposed to amounted to such an appropriation as discharged the notes payable in Confederate money. It is difficult to perceive the idea his Honor intended to convey by the word appropriation. The word has two meanings in law. It is sometimes used to express the application of a sum of money to one of several debts, due from the same debtor to his creditor, sometimes to describe the acts of setting apart certain goods or chattels to the purpose of a contract, but in the connection in which it is here placed, it has no legal significance whatever. The transaction, if anything, was a payment. If a payment, it satisfied the debt; and if the debt was satisfied, the property in the specific sum of money required for that purpose, passed to the payees. For the one of these results implies the other. If the property in the money passed, the payees might, after demand and refusal, maintain an action of detinue or trover for the money against the defendant or third person, to whom he has passed it. But will it be contended that the payees could have sustained an action of detinue or trover, or any other action in which it is necessary to allege and prove property in the plaintiff. If this was a payment, it is one by which a debt is satisfied, and yet the debtor parts with nothing, and the creditor receives nothing, which is absurd. I. The three notes are to be taken as one contract, made in May.
A bond for loaned money to hire a substitute, or with the knowledge it was to be used to hire a substitute in the Confederate army, is illegal.Critcher v. Holloway,
If Plummer had borrowed the money to pay an illegal debt, it would *Page 321
not be illegal as in Poindexter v. Davis,
II. As to payment: See Simmons v. Cahoon,
The line between such contracts as are tainted with rebellion, and therefore void, and those which are not so infected, is clearly marked by the decisions of this Court. The principle established is, that whenever a dollar has been expended to destroy the life of the Republic, it shall never return to the pocket of its owner.
To hold otherwise, would be to invite other rebellions.
A. sells to an agent of the Confederate Government mules, knowing that they are to be used in that service, but takes the individual bond of the agent, with personal security, for the payment of the price agreed upon. He cannot recover it. Martin v. McMillan,
Money lent during the rebellion to a county to enable it to provide salt for its citizens, and thus avoid one of the penalties of the blockade, cannot be recovered. Leak v. Commissioners,
A. lends money to B. with the knowledge that B. intends with it to hire a substitute and put him into the Confederate army. A. cannot recover the money. Critcher v. Holloway,
Money is lent with a knowledge that it is to be used in equiping [equipping] a company for the Confederate service. It cannot be recovered.Smitherman v. Sanders,
It is not difficult to perceive that the principle of the cases cited, govern the case before us. For it is not easily imagined how one could render more efficient aid to the Confederacy, in 1864, than by furnishing it with iron, and especially iron suitable for making guns, thereby enabling the Confederacy to protract the struggle and counteract the measures of the Government of the United States for the suppression of the rebellion.
The Courts of the rightful government cannot countenance such *Page 322 contracts as the one before us, but will leave the parties, who are in paridelicto, where they stand.
The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.
PER CURIAM. Judgment affirmed.
Lance v. Hunter,
Turner v. . the N.C. R. R. Co. , 63 N.C. 522 ( 1869 )
Russell H. Kingsbury v. . John Flemming , 66 N.C. 524 ( 1872 )
Poindexter v. . Davis , 67 N.C. 112 ( 1872 )
Martin v. . McMillan's Adm'r. . , 63 N.C. 486 ( 1869 )
Critcher v. . Holloway , 64 N.C. 526 ( 1870 )
Martin v. . McMillan , 65 N.C. 199 ( 1871 )
Kingsbury v. . Gooch , 64 N.C. 528 ( 1870 )
Calvert v. . Williams , 64 N.C. 168 ( 1870 )