Dowd v. N. C. Railroad

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Dowd v. N. C. Railroad

70 N.C. 468

DecidedJanuary 5, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 70 N.C. 468 (Dowd v. N. C. Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dowd v. N. C. Railroad, 70 N.C. 468 (N.C. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Beade, J.

If Confederate money had been in existence as a circulating medium 1st of January, 1866, when the note matured, the defendant had the privilege of paying it off in that currency, by the very terms of the note itself.

As there ivas no such currency' when the note matured, if the consideration had been Confederate money loaned, then the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover the value of the Confederate money at the date of the contract, viz: at the date of the note. As the consideration was not Confederate money, but was for the hire of slaves for the year 1865, viz: *470 a thing or property, then the value of the property at the time of the contract is the standard; or, to use the language of the statute, “ the value of the contract in present currency is the standard.” That must be understood to mean in this case the value of the hire of the slaves for the term of hiring, viz: during the year 1865, and this although the slaves were emancipated in the meantime. Woodfin v. Sluder, Phil. Rep. 200.

The other points are not material. It was not necessary that the plaintiff should have demanded payment at the defendant’s office, because if any demand would have been necessary under any circumstances, here the ease shows that it would have amounted to nothing, for the defendant insisted then, and insists now, that he had the right to pay the bond in Confederate money, which was worthlessand he now brings the Confederate money into Court, which he says he set apart and has always kept for that purpose — showing that a demand would have been useless. And furthermore, if a note be payable at a particular time and place, a demand at the time and place need not be averred or proved. It is otherwise if it be payable on demand at a particular time and place. Alexander v. Commissioners of McDowell, 67 N. C. R. 330; Nichols v. Pool, 2 Jones R. 23.

Interest is to be calculated on the value of the eontract fro® 1st January, 1866, when the note matured.

No. error.

Pep. Cueia-m, Judgment affirmed*

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Beade, J.

If Confederate money had been in existence as a circulating medium 1st of January, 1866, when the note matured, the defendant had the privilege of paying it off in that currency, by the very terms of the note itself.

As there ivas no such currency' when the note matured, if the consideration had been Confederate money loaned, then the plaintiff would have been entitled to recover the value of the Confederate money at the date of the contract, viz: at the date of the note. As the consideration was not Confederate money, but was for the hire of slaves for the year 1865, viz: *470 a thing or property, then the value of the property at the time of the contract is the standard; or, to use the language of the statute, “ the value of the contract in present currency is the standard.” That must be understood to mean in this case the value of the hire of the slaves for the term of hiring, viz: during the year 1865, and this although the slaves were emancipated in the meantime. Woodfin v. Sluder, Phil. Rep. 200.

The other points are not material. It was not necessary that the plaintiff should have demanded payment at the defendant’s office, because if any demand would have been necessary under any circumstances, here the ease shows that it would have amounted to nothing, for the defendant insisted then, and insists now, that he had the right to pay the bond in Confederate money, which was worthlessand he now brings the Confederate money into Court, which he says he set apart and has always kept for that purpose — showing that a demand would have been useless. And furthermore, if a note be payable at a particular time and place, a demand at the time and place need not be averred or proved. It is otherwise if it be payable on demand at a particular time and place. Alexander v. Commissioners of McDowell, 67 N. C. R. 330; Nichols v. Pool, 2 Jones R. 23.

Interest is to be calculated on the value of the eontract fro® 1st January, 1866, when the note matured.

No. error.

Pep. Cueia-m, Judgment affirmed*

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 N.C. 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dowd-v-n-c-railroad-nc-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack