Mathews v. Rucker
| Decision Date | 01 January 1874 |
| Citation | 41 Tex. 636 |
| Parties | JOHN F. MATHEWS v. A. C. RUCKER. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from Henderson. Tried below before the Hon. J. B. Williamson.
N. G. Bagley, for appellant.
Martin Casey, for appellee.
Appellant asks for a reversal of the judgment in this case on the following ground: “The court erred in sustaining the defendant's exceptions or demurrer to the plaintiff's petition and amended petition.” The suit was on a promissory note for $280.22, dated 27th February, 1862, and due one day from date. The defendant, by a special answer, set up that the words “dollars and cents” in the note, meant dollars and cents in the notes and money of the Confederate States, and was to be paid in that currency by agreement of the parties. The plaintiff, by an amended petition, alleged that Confederate notes or money, at the date and maturity of the promissory note sued on, was worth dollar for dollar in the currency of the United States. In that state of the pleadings, the court sustained the exception to the amended petition, and the parties proceeded to trial before a jury on the allegations of the original petition and answers. Under the charge of the court, the jury returned a verdict for the defendant. The court charged the jury: “If the note was given for drugs purchased, and if it was agreed by the parties that the drugs were to be paid for in Confederate money, then you are instructed that said note is held in this State to be given for an illegal consideration, and cannot be collected; otherwise to find on the note.” The only error assigned is that the court erred in sustaining defendant's exceptions. Our predecessors have decided that “a note payable in Confederate money is illegal and void, whether the fact appears on the face of the note or by any legitimate proof.” (Shepard v. Taylor, 35 Tex., 774.) And this is in accordance with their previous decisions on such questions. The instructions to the jury respond to the rule declared in these cases, when the court informs the jury that the note is held in this State to be given for an illegal consideration, and cannot be collected, &c. A different rule obtains in the courts of the United States, as enunciated in the case of Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall., 1, the opinion being delivered by Chief Justice Chase. The court said: “The questions before us upon this appeal are these:
1. Can a contract for the payment of Confederate notes made during the late rebellion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnham v. McMichael
...debt barred by limitation, may form the consideration for a new promise, or even a conveyance. Shearon v. Henderson, 38 Tex. 246; Mathews v. Rucker, 41 Tex. 636. But, outside of this, it has been held that the consent of the wife to sign the deed to her homestead forms sufficient considerat......
-
United States v. Fuller.
...him than is contained in this indictment. This view finds support by analogy in the principle laid down in the following cases: Mathews v. Rucker, 41 Tex. 636; Short v. Abernathy, 42 Tex. 94; Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1; Stoughton v. Hill, 3 Woods 404: Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. 548......
-
U.S. v. Fuller
... ... This view finds support by analogy in the principle laid down ... in the following cases: Mathews v ... Rucker, 41 Tex. 636; Short v ... Abernathy, 42 Tex. 94; Thorington ... v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1; Stoughton ... v. Hill, 3 Woods 404: ... ...
-
Butler v. Fechner
...Kyle v. House, 38 Tex. 155, which is cited by appellees, and which has never been cited in Texas except to overrule a part of it (Mathews v. Rucker, 41 Tex. 636), the facts are very meager, but still indicate that the executor kept the claims after a promise to allow and pay them, until the......