¶1 The ordinance of Oct. 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, chs. 38 and 39, relate only to the following contracts made during the late war :
¶2 1. Executory contracts solvable in money.
¶3 2. “Debts contracted, in which the nature of the obligation is not set forth, nor the value of the property for which such debts were created, is stated.”
¶4*95 . The rules of construction laid down in Robeson v. Brown, 63 N. C., 554, are only applicable to such contracts.
¶5 The case before us presents a different kind of contract, i. ■e., a contract of exchange, or barter, of property. The plaintiff, under an express agreement, delivered to the defendant a number of hats, and was to receive in exchange thirty pounds of lint cotton for each hat. The defendant failed to perform his part of the contract, and this suit was brought to recover damages for such non-performance. The true measure of damages is the value of the cotton at the time and place of the contract. As United States Treasury notes were not used as a medium of exchange within the limits of the insurrectionary States, in contracts made during the war, gold must be adopted as a standard value. Where the gold value of the contract is ascertained by evidence, the jury, in adding the depreciation of treasury notes, should be governed by the market value of such currency at the time of the verdict, and judgment should be rendered for amount: Mitchell v. Henderson, 63 N. C. 643.
¶6 The defendant in his pleadings insisted that this contract was void for illegality, as it was in violation of the act of Congress of July 13th 1861, 12 U. S. Stat. at large, 257. That act interdicted all commercial intercourse between citizens •of the United States, and citizens of the insurrectionary States, but did not prohibit contracts between citizens of the •same section. This contract was made within the limits of an insurrectionary State, between citizens of said State, and the goods were exchanged on private account, and with no intent to aid the rebellion.
¶7 The plaintiff violated the law when he purchased the hats in Elizabeth City, and they became liable to forfeiture; but they were safely transported within the Confederate lines, and changed in the course of domestic trade, and such contract is in no way tainted with illegality: Phillips v. Hooker, Phil. Eq. 193.
¶8 There was error in the ruling of his Honor in the court *96 below, as to estimating tbe value of tbe plaintiffs’ contract, and there must be a verme de novo.
¶9 Let this be certified.
¶10 Pee Cueiam. Venire de novo.