Palmer v. Love's Exr's

BynümE, J. The obligation sued on was executed in the month of June; 1868, and it is, therefore, presumed to have been solvable fn Confederate currency. Hilliard v. Moore, 65 N. C. Rep., 640. In King v. The Wil. & Weld. R. R. Co., recently decided in ■«the Supreme Court of the United States and not yet reported-, lit was held, reversing the decision of this Court in the same ease, (66 N. C. Rep., 277,)' that where a note payable in Confederate currency is given for property, the value of that •currency, at the time and place of the contract, is the true measure of the value of the contract. See, also, Sherrington w. Smith, 8 Wall., 1. As the decision of that Court, in King’s «case, was based upon the construction of the clause in the Constitution of the United States, forbidding all laws impairing the obligation of contracts, as applied to Confederate motes given for property, it is a binding authority in this "Court. Accordingly, here the plaintiff must establish what ■his Confederate nóte of $525, the agreed price of the property sold, was worth in National currency ■ at-the time and place of the contract. It may not always be easy to arrive at the value of Confederate money, at a given time and place. In default of •other and better proof, it would, doubtless, be competent to ■give ;in evidence the value of the property for which the note was given, for the purpose of showing, as near as may he, the value of the Confederate currency named in the note. *165 In the present case, the Court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the property sold. In this there is error. Per Curiají, Judgment reversed and venire de novo,