Before MOSES, J., at Spartanburg, April Term, 1873.

Action by D. E. Converse, plain tiff,'against John H. Evins, as administrator of S. IT. Evins, deceased, defendant, upon a sealed note as follows:

“ Three years after a treaty of peace between the Confederate States and the United States, or cessation of hostilities for the same time between the same, I promise to pay D. E. Converse, or order, the sam of three thousand dollars in specie or bills of then specie paying banks ; and I herein pledge myself to pay this when due, notwithstanding any Act of Congress or Legislature that might excuse me from so doing, either as to time or otherwise, for value received; as witness my hand and seal, this 17th day of October, 1863. “S. N. EVINS. [seal.]

“ Witness:

“ J. Bomar,

“ A. H. Twichell.

The defense was that the note was given for Confederate States eight per cent, bonds, sold or loaned by the plaintiff to the intestate; and the fact that such was the consideration of the note was proved at the trial on the part of the defendant.

The counsel for the defense requested His Honor the presiding Judge to instruct the jury, inter alia, that

“If, in point of fact, the note sued on was given for the purchase or loan of Confederate bonds, then, in law, the note was illegal and void.”

His Honor declined so to charge, and the defendant excepted.

Under the instructions of His Honor, the jury found for the plaintiff $4,001.56.

A motion for a new trial was made and overruled, and defendant appealed on the ground of error in the refusal to charge as above stated.

relied upon Hananer vs. Woodruff, 15 Wal., 437, as decisive of the point made by the . appeal.

The contract was made by parties able to contract, was reduced to writing with care, and fully explains itself.

In the defense it is contended that there was no consideration passed between the parties.

Were Confederate bonds a consideration?

The bonds were in circulation as money and for investment, bearing eight per cent, interest. The intestate had the use of them during the war, and for three years after. By that contract that difference, in his favor, was, in the judgment of the intestate, full compensation for him to risk the result of the war — had it been successful — then he would have got eight per cent, in the way of interest for five years and his. money back, and the plaintiff prefered to let him have it — hence the trade.

This Court has recognized investments in these bonds. — Hinton vs. Eenneday, 3 S. C., 457, 490 ; 'Cureton vs. Watson, 3 S. C., 451.

…

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress