Vason v. Beall
| Decision Date | 31 January 1877 |
| Citation | 58 Ga. 500 |
| Parties | David A. Vason et al., plaintiffs in error. v. Jeremiah Beall, trustee, defendant in error. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Trusts. Set-off. Contracts. Statute of Limitations. Principal and Security. Debtor and Creditor. Charge of Court. Tender. Scaling Ordinance. Evidence. Before Judge Kiddoo. Dougherty Superior Court. October Term, 1876.
On May 8th, 1868, Jeremiah Beall, as trustee for Jesse S. Beall, a minor, brought complaint against David A. Vason, as principal, and John A. Davis, as security, on a note dated June 11th, 1862, signed by said defendants, whereby they, or either of them, promised to pay, twelve months after the date thereof, to William Sanford or bearer, five thousand dollars. The defendants pleaded as follows:
1st. The general issue.
2d. That the note was given for the loan of Confederate money by the plaintiff to Vason, under an agreement that it was to be paid at maturity in like currency. That such Confederate money was tendered to the plaintiff, at the maturity of said note, on or about June 14th, 1863, but the said plaintiff refused to accept the same. That plaintiff requested the said Vason to keep the money for another year, but said defendant refused to accede to this. That plaintiff then stated that if said Vason would keep said money for another year, and was unable to use it, or lost anything on it, the loss should be plaintiff's. That upon these terms said Vason retained the money, and not being able to use it otherwise, invested it in Confederate bonds, which he now has, and which are wholly worthless.
3d. That at the maturity of said note, the Confederate treasury notes in which it was to be paid, were not worth exceeding $769.20 in gold. 4th. That the plaintiff was, at the commencement of this *suit, and now is, indebted to the firm of Vason & Davis, composed of these defendants, in the sum of $903.00, with interest from January 1st, 1868, for professional services rendered as attorneys. That the plaintiff agreed that this indebtedness should be set-off against said note, and that defendants, relying upon this promise, have failed to take any steps to enforce the collection of this counter-claim, until it is barred by the statute of limitations. 5th. The scaling ordinance.
Davis pleaded separately, that he was discharged by reason of the facts set forth in the second and fourth pleas above stated.
Numerous other pleas were filed, which are deemed immaterial here.
The plaintiff introduced his note and closed.
Vason testified, in substance, as follows: The note was given for the loan to him, by Beall, of Confederate treasury notes, with the understanding that this amount was to be repaid in like currency. Beall sent the note, with the money, to Davis, with instructions to have the note signed, with the latter as security, to deliver the money to witness, and to return the note to him. Witness never heard of Sanford in these transactions until the note was presented to him for his signature. The first time that Beall was in Albany after the note matured, witness stated to him that he was ready to pay fi. Beall said he had no use for the money, and begged witness to keep it. Witness replied that he had no use for it. Beall begged him to keep it, and do the best he could with it. Witness replied that if he could not do any better with it, he could at least invest it in bonds of the Confederate states. Beall told him to keep the money and do the best he could with it, and if he sustained any loss, he would make it all right. On the faith of this promise, witness kept the identical money which he then had on hand, and failing to use it for any advantageous purpose, finally invested it in bonds of the Confederate states, which are now utterly worthless. This loss resulted *from the above agreement; for, had it not been made, he would not have kept the money and so invested it. Beall neither took the money, nor offered to take it.
Davis testified, in substance, as follows: In 1866 Beall was a large cotton buyer, in Albany, and had a great deal of law business in that vicinity. The defendants, as the firm of Vason & Davis, were his attorneys, and he became largely indebted to them for professional services. Witness presented a bill for these services, when Beall remarked (that there was a settlement to be had between him and Vason in reference to the note now sued on, and that the amount of the bill so presented should be credited and allowed in said settlement, so soon as it was agreed upon between them). Witness stated that he thought the note was paid, to which Beall replied, "No, it is not paid; but Vason, about the time it fell due, offered to pay it to me in Confederate money; but I refused it, and told him to use the money otherwise, if he could, and if he sustained any loss in the use of it that I would make it all right." Witness then stated that if Beall expected anything on said note, he would have to get it from Vason, as witness felt that he was under no obligation, either legal or moral, to pay one cent on it. Beall replied that there was no danger of witness being held liable, as Vason and he were about to settle it—the only difference between them being as to how the note should be scaled.
The portion of the above testimony, in parenthesis, was excluded by the court. Barber's tables were introduced.
Beall testified, in substance, as follows: In the spring of 1862, Vason made application to him for a loan, saying that he understood that William Sanford, of Baldwin county, was a capitalist, had money to lend, and that witness sometimes negotiated loans for him. He stated that he would make a note, with John A. Davis as security, and witness could take it to Baldwin countywith him. Witness took the note sued on, and presented
it to Sanford, who stated *that he had about that much money on hand, but there were half a dozen applications for it. At witness' solicitation he took the note. Vason acknowledged his obligation to witness for the favor, remarking that it would be of much service to him, and that he could use it to great advantage. A month or two before the note fell due, Vason asked witness if he wished the money on the note. Witness replied that Sanford was dead, and he was his executor, and that he did not then need the money. He said that he would like to let the note run until next winter. Witness stated that he might have the indulgence if it was any accommodation to him. Nothing was said about Confederate money in the future, or any probable loss. There was no pledge or promise made; everybody was glad to get money at that time. Vason neither tendered witness the money, nor stated that he had it on hand. In the winter following, witness was in Albany continuously, and Vason manifested no disposition to pay the note. Witness was receiving Confederate money for all debts due the estate. He never did refuse it, even to the time of General Lee's surrender. Vason knew this. Witness was again in Albany during the succeeding winter, when Vason had another opportunity of paying the note. In April, 1864, witness funded with Y. G. Rust, of Albany, $10,500.00 in Confederate money, which he had collected in the neighborhood for the estate represented by him, two years after the note sued on matured. The value of the note is $2,500.00 in greenbacks, with interest from date. This is what the plaintiff is entitled to recover. Vason never proposed to pay the amount due on the note, either before or after its maturity. Witness never told Vason to use the money, and that, if it was lost, he would do what was right, or anything else to the effect that he would bear or share the loss.
For the purpose of impeaching Beall, the defendant offered in evidence the answers of Rollin D. Mallory to certain interrogatories, to the effect that in the. summer of 1862he borrowed Confederate money from the...
To continue reading
Request your trial