¶1 It appears from the evidence introduced by the *104 plaintiff, that the note sued on was given on the 18th clay of January 1865, for property purchased at an administrator’s sale. Before the sale was made, it was distinctly announced by the auctioneer, as one of the terms of sale, that Confederate money would not be received in payment, from the purchasers. This evidence fully rebutted the presumption created by the Ordinance, of Oct. 18th 1865, and the Acts of 1866, chapters 38 and 39.
¶2 In the case of Laws, Adm'r. v. Rycroft, at this term, the collateral contract was not sufficiently definite to prevent the operation of said statutes.
¶3 There is no error.
¶4 Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.