Reavis v. Blackshear

• Decision Date: 31 January 1868
• Parties: S. A. REAVIS ET AL. v. L. A. BLACKSHEAR.
• Court: Texas Supreme Court

30 Tex. 753

S. A. REAVIS ET AL.

v.L. A. BLACKSHEAR.

Supreme Court of Texas.

January, 1868.

Where a note was given for the hire of a slave, due 1st January, 1865, “to be paid in the currency of the Confederate States, if then paid, with ten per cent. interest after maturity,” the note was void.

APPEAL from Leon. The case was tried before Hon. ROBERT S. GOULD, one of the district judges.

As the decision turned upon the principle that the contract was itself a nullity, the history given by the court is deemed sufficient.

W. D. Wood, for plaintiff in error.

No brief for the defendant in error has been furnished to the reporter.

MORRILL, C. J.

Suit was brought on the following note: “On the first day of January, 1865, we, or either of us, promise to pay L. A. Blackshear (administrator of the estate of J. A. Blackshear, deceased) $200, value received, for hire of servant Norry. We also agree to give said girl two summer suits of clothes and a winter suit, consisting of a dress, underskirt, under-garments, sack, two pairs of shoes, and a blanket or quilt, pay doctor's bills, taxes, etc.; to be paid in the currency of the Confederate States, if then paid, and ten per cent. interest after maturity, March 5, 1864.

S. A. REAVIS,

WM. REAVIS,

ALEX. PATRICK.”

On the trial of the cause various exceptions were taken. The jury found for the payee of the note the amount called for in dollars therein, and judgment was ordered on the verdict.

The errors assigned are, that the court erred in not permitting the makers of the note to prove the value of Confederate money and in not granting a new trial.

We deem it unnecessary to examine in detail the several rulings of the court. The cases of Smith v. Smith, and McCartney v. Greenway,¹ decided by this court at the last term at Austin, are decisive of this case.

For the reasons stated in these cases the judgment is reversed, and cause

Dismissed.

1. For some reason these cases were ordered not to be printed, but this reference renders this publication necessary.MCCARTNEY V. GREENWAY.“MORRILL, C. J. The question for adjudication in this case is, whether an action can be sustained on a note, the consideration of which was Confederate money. We historically, and therefore judicially, know that Confederate money was the promise of the Confederate States to pay a specified amount at a designated time, after a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the Unitad States, and was the principal, if not the...