Cook v. Lillo
| Decision Date | 01 October 1880 |
| Citation | 26 L.Ed. 460,103 U.S. 792 |
| Parties | COOK v. LILLO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Mr. Charles B. Singleton, Mr. Richard H. Browne, and Mr. John A. Campbell for the appellant.
Mr. C. E. Schmidt and Mr. Thomas J. Semmes, contra.
It has long been settled in this court that transactions in Confederate money during the late civil war between the inhabitants of the Confederate States within the Confederate lines, not intended to promote the ends of the Confederate government, could be enforced in the courts of the United States, after the restoration of peace, to the extent of their just obligation. It is equally well settled that if a contract entered into under such circumstances, payable in dollars, was, according to the understanding of the parties, to be paid in Confederate dollars, upon proof of that fact the party entitled to the payment can only recover the value of Confederatedo llars in the lawful money of the United States. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1.
The loan for which the notes sued on in this case were given was made by a check on one of the New Orleans banks. The business of the banks was at that time done in Confederate currency. That kind of money was received and paid out in ordinary transactions, but the evidence fails entirely to satisfy us that the dollars called for in the notes were, by the agreement or understanding of the parties, Confederate dollars. Cook owed a debt of $10,000, payable in lawful money of the United States, and bearing interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum. He borrowed of the Sonlies $10,000 at a reduced rate of interest to pay that debt. It is fair to presume from the evidence that the dollars he borrowed paid the dollars he owed. He says himself his only object in the transaction was to carry his debt at less interest. It is nowhere intimated that the dollars he expected to pay on his loan were other of different from those he owed on his old debt. Not long after the notes were given, New Orleans was taken possession of by the military forces of the United States, and was never afterwards within the Confederate lines. Payments to a large amount both of principal and interest have been made, and always in lawful money or its equivalent. So far as we can discover from the evidence, no claim was ever made that the notes called for Confederate dollars until about the time of the commencement of this suit, which was fifteen years after the notes were given, and after thousands of dollars had been paid any many extensions of time secured. The court below was clearly right,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gunby v. Armstrong
...principal. Driesbach v. National Bank, 104 U.S. 52, 26 L.Ed. 658; Barnet v. National Bank, 98 U.S. 555, 25 L.Ed. 212. In Cook v. Lillo, 103 U.S. 792, 26 L.Ed. 460, the Louisiana statute was considered, and upon decisions of the Supreme Court of the state it was decided that the usurious int......
-
M. Levy & Sons v. Jeffords
... ... v. J. Johnson et al., 10 Wheaton, 438. See, also, ... Story on Conflict of Law (8 Ed.), 382, 392, 393; Note to ... Bank of Newport v. Cook, 46 Am. St. Rep ... 201, et seq. (1895); Couret et al. v ... Conner et al., 118 Miss. 374; First National ... Bank of Iowa City v. John McGrath ... Charlton (La.), 36 So. 968; Conflict of Laws; ... Distinction between Lex Fori and Foreign Laws; 1 ... Wigmore on Evidence, sec 5; Cook v. Lillo ... 103 U.S. 792; Walsh v. Mayer et al., 111 ... U.S. 31; Driesbach v. National Bank, 104 ... U.S. 52; Carter v. Carusi, 112 U.S. 478; ... Brown ... ...
-
New Orleansco v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co
...of the United States. Bank v. Bank, 16 Wall. 483, 497; Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. 548; Railroad Co. v. King, 91 U. S. 3; Cook v. Lillo, 103 U. S. 792. Yet in Bethell v. Demaret, 10 Wall. 537, where a suit on a mortgage to secure the payment of promissory notes given for a loan of Confe......
-
In re Donnay
...be brought within two years of its payment."). This comports with the general rule adopted around the country. See Cook v. Lillo, 103 U.S. 792, 793, 26 L.Ed. 460 (1880) (interpreting Louisiana law); 45 Am. Jur.2d, Interest & Usury § 280 (1969) ("The right of action accrues at the time of th......