Murphy v. Weems
| Decision Date | 30 September 1882 |
| Citation | 69 Ga. 687 |
| Parties | Murphy. vs. Weems. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Contracts. Confederate Government. Charge of Court. Before Judge Simmons Gordon Superior Court. February Term, 1882.
Reported in the decision.
J. A. Jervis; R.J. MgCamy, for plaintiff in error.
R. B. Trippe, for defendant.
Weems sued Murphy by attachment on a note made March the 5th, 1867, and payable to Denman, or bearer, for eighty-nine dollars, and due one day after date. Defendant pleaded that the consideration of the note was illegal, in that it was given in renewal of a note for a horse to be ridden by Murphy in the Confederate service and against the United States.
It appears from the evidence that, at the date of the note sued on, Denman and Murphy met, Murphy being in possession of the horse and bringing him to the meeting, and Denman bringing the note for a large sum in Confederate money, which in 1863 had been given for the horse. Two arbitrators agreed on were to meet the two to settle their differences, as to the value of the horse particularly. One arbitrator failed to meet, but the other suggested that the horse as he stood was worth eighty-nine dollars, and both parties agreed to settle at that sum, and Murphy gave the note sued on for the horse and kept him.
1. It is doubtful that the original sale was illegal. A man may sell his horse and know that the buyer will use him to ride in the Confederate service, and yet not intend to aid that service at all, conceding that it was illegal, as now held, to aid it. But on this point the court below charged squarely, that if the purpose of the sale was to have the horse used in the service of the Confederacy, it was illegal. So that the maker of the note and plaintiff in error cannot complain of the charge by the court on this point.
2. But when the note sued on was given, all was peace. No war was raging. The Confederate government was annihilated, and the United States were triumphant. The man who had ridden the horse brought him back in safety. The man who held the note wanted his horse or the money. They could not agree on terms. They met to try to agree by leaving the matter to two friends. There stood the horse. His value then as he stood, after being used in service some four years after the first sale, seems to have been the only question. One of the friends—the other not meeting them—suggested that the horse as he stood, — nothing being charged or exacted for the use of him...
To continue reading
Request your trial