Bogle v. Hammons
| Decision Date | 31 December 1870 |
| Citation | 49 Tenn. 136 |
| Parties | Joseph Bogle v. C. A. Hammons et al. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM CANNON.
In the Chancery Court at Woodbury, before B. M. TILLMAN, Ch.
St. John and Finley, for complainant, cited Belotte v. Henderson. 5 Cold., 474, 5;Jones v. Thomas, 5 Cold., 469; Waller v. Parker, Id., 479, 80.
J. S. BARTON, for Defendants.
The complainant executed a deed of conveyance, bearing date 8th December, 1862, to Larkin W. and Elijah R. Hammons, minor children of C. A. Hammons, for the tract of land therein described, situate in Cannon county, and containing 65 acres and two rods, more or less, by estimation, as stated in said deed, for the consideration of nine hundred dollars; of which amount, the deed recites that eight hundred dollars had been paid, and the balance of one hundred dollars secured by the note of C. A. Hammons to the said L. W. and E. R. Hammons, due and payable 25th December, 1863, and for the payment of which a lien is retained on the face of the deed. The payment of eight hundred dollars was made in Confederate Treasury notes; and the object of the original bill, filed 24th April, 1866, and of the amended bill, filed 14th March, 1868, when considered together, is in brief, to have the deed annulled for failure of consideration, and because it is alleged the same was obtained by fraud and duress.
It appears from the record, that, during the late civil war, and up to the time of the execution of said deed, Cannon county was in possession, or subject to the control, of the Confederate military forces; and that the following order, issued by a military officer in command,, was printed as a circular or hand-bill, and generally posted throughout the country, viz:
+--------------------------------+
¦“Headquarters Cavalry Brigade,¦)¦
+------------------------------+-¦
¦McMinnville, July 25, 1862. ¦)¦
+--------------------------------+
Any person who shall refuse to receive Confederate money, or shall say or write anything to depreciate the same, shall be subject to a fine and imprisonment, or confiscation of property, either or both, as the nature of the case may indicate. The asking of exorbitant prices for goods, or the commodities of life, such as would indicate a want of confidence in Confederate money, is prohibited; and any person so offending, shall be subject to fine and imprisonment, or confiscation of property, either or both, as the nature of the case may indicate.
N. B. Forrest,
Brig.-Gen., Commanding Brigade.”
This order, it seems, was actively circulated throughout the country, and occasionally enforced, through the soldiery, by threats and arrests; and, for fear of the consequences, many persons received Confederate notes who would not otherwise have done so. According to the weight of evidence, the complainant was a Union man, and C. A. Hammons a Rebel, who had been hired as a substitute in the Confederate army.
Hammons, expecting to be soon put upon active duty, and, perhaps, to be engaged in the then approaching battle of Murfreesboro, became anxious to purchase the complainant's land, and to have it conveyed to his children, either to protect it against his creditors, or to provide for the possible contingency of his early death. Certain parol negotiations occurred between him and the complainant, from which it was manifest that the complainant, who was somewhat embarrassed in his circumstances, was quite unwilling to receive Confederate money in payment, yet fearful to risk the consequences of a direct and positive refusal. Hammons, on the other hand, was equally determined to avail himself of the well grounded apprehensions of complainant, to take advantage of the circumstances which surrounded him, and to extort, from his fears, a conveyance of the land. Having received one thousand dollars, in Confederate notes, either for his services as a substitute, or as an agent to purchase hogs, he invested a portion of the money in that way, and told one of the witnesses, in substance and with an oath, that complainant had agreed to sell him the land, and that he would compel him to do so. He went to the house of complainant, who was engaged at the time in shoemaking, and proposed to give nine hundred dollars for the land in Confederate money. Complainant refused to take it. In the language of the witness, Hammons “then pulled out eight hundred dollars in Confederate money, and laid it on the lapboard.” Complainant told him not to lay his money down there until he saw further about it. Defendant remarked that if they were going to make the trade, then was the time to make it; said repeatedly that, if the money did not answer all purposes, he would take it back, or make it as good as gold and silver; and, after he laid the money upon the lapboard, observed that “if a man refused to take this Confederate money, just report him to Gen. Forrest, and he would hang him four feet from the ground.” He went off and left the money lying upon the lapboard; and the complainant afterwards executed the deed. It does not clearly appear how long the fears of complainant, thus produced, existed before signing the deed, but one of his daughters proves that these fears continued “a right smart while--a month or two;” and that Hammons kept making his threats as long as he was a soldier, which was about that length of time. This witness states that she stayed with Hammons' wife about five weeks, “while he was a soldiering,” and that while she remained there, he came home every day, with the exception of one week, during which he remained away.
One witness, who does not appear to be related to either of the parties, proves that in the fall of 1862, he, the witness, was “backward about taking Confederate money, and Col. Hardy said to me, (him,) ‘if you refuse to take that money I will carry you to headquarters quicker than you ever went;’ and the penalty for refusing Confederate money is, they hang them four feet clear from the ground.” Another witness proves that the cavalry, belonging chiefly to Forrest's and Morgan's commands, were “around there” in 1862; that they were passing through the country “frequently, every few days,” and made threats that if the people refused to take Confederate money,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMahan v. Tucker
...driver of the truck worked for him to let the matter rest until morning. I think this is likewise immaterial. In the case of Bogle v. Hammons et al., 49 Tenn. 136, it said: 'Other propositions have been vehemently urged in argument by the defendants; but after a very careful examination of ......
-
McMahan v. Tucker
...driver of the truck worked for him to let the matter rest until morning. I think this is likewise immaterial. In the case of Bogle v. Hammons et al., 49 Tenn. 136, it is said: "Other propositions have been vehemently urged in argument by the defendants; but after a very careful examination ......
- Roberts v. Francis
-
State ex rel. Ammons v. City of Knoxville
...person was still under the influence of the threats, it has been held that this will constitute an act done under duress'. See Bogle v. Hammons, 49 Tenn. 136, 140, where the deed was executed a month or two after the threat was made to subject Bogle to the penalty of the Military order (186......