contract, that implication must be gathered from the contract itself.1

IV. CONFEDERATE NOTES.-These must be regarded as a currency imposed on the community by irresistible force. Such currency must be considered in courts of law the same as if it had been issued by a foreign government temporarily occupying a part of the territory of the United States.2

Contracts made during the war in one of the confederate states payable in confederate currency but not desgined to aid the insurrectionary government, are not invalid because thus payable, and will be enforced in the national courts, the value of the contracts being determined by the value of the confederate notes in lawful money of the United States at the time when, and place where, the contract was to be performed.3

Whether a contract payable in "dollars" shall be paid in lawful or in confederate money depends upon circumstances going to show the intention and surroundings of the parties. A valid payment could not be made to an agent, in the confederate States, of a citizen of a loyal State, in anything but legal tender of the United States.5 Payment to a co-executor in Virginia, in 1862, made and accepted in good faith, of confederate money

In an action for money had and received, to recover gold coin deposited as security, that the damages must be limited to the amount of money received, with interest, and could not be enhanced by its increased value as merchandise. Frothingham v. Morse, 45 N. H. 545. See also Gibson v. Groner, 63 N. Čar. 10.

2. Thorneyton v. Smith, 8 Wall. (U. S.) I.

3. The Wilmington etc. R. Co. v. King, 91 U. S. 3; Stewart v. Salamon, 94 U. S. 434; Cook v. Lillo, 103 U. S. 892; River v. Duke, 105 U. S. 132; Effinger v. Kenney, 115 U. S. 566.

A decision that was confined to confederate money, held that the liability of an officer who has converted trust funds to his own use may be discharged in the same currency as received, although such currency was depreciated or worthless, where the officer has acted in good faith. The identical bills are not necessary. It is sufficient if the fund has been kept intact in the same character of security as received and as the property of the beneficiary. Touchstone v. Whittington, 58 Tenn.

68.

4. Confederate Note Case, 19 Wall. (U. S.) 548 and cases last cited.

In a very old case it was held that the court could not presume that parties to a contract contemplated payment in depreciated currency from the mere facts that there was but little money in circulation at the time of the contract, and that the currency was very unsettled. Grimke v. Grimke, 1 Desaus. (S. Car.) 366.

5. Fietz v. Stover, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 198; McBurney v. Carson, 99 U. S. 567.

Right of an agent to receive confederate note. One line of cases holds that if at the time and place of payment the notes commonly circulated as money, the agent's authority, unless he is forbidden to receive them, may be implied, even though the principal be not resident within the limits of the confederacy. Robinson v. International L. Assurance Soc., 42 N. Y. 54; Pidgeon v. Williams, 21 Gratt. (Va.) 251. Hale v. Wall, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 424; Rodgers v. Bass, 46 Tex. 505. The weight of authority is against this doctrine. Harper v. Harvey, 4 W. Va. 539; Alby v. Rodgers, 19 Gratt. (Va.) 366; Fietz v. Stover, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 198. See also Straus v. Bloom, 18 La. An. 48; also Bank of Tennessee v. Woodson, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 176, where payment of a confederate note by an attorney was

for a debt contracted in 1862 was held valid. But the act of an executor in accepting confederate money in payment of a debt contracted in 1856 and investing the proceeds in confederate bonds, was held illegal and void, in the absence of ratification by the beneficiaries of the estate.2

A federal question is not necessarily involved in a case because the consideration of a contract was confederate money, or because payment was made in such money. Such a question arises only where the contract was made in aid of the insurrectionary government, or the constitutionality of a State provision regarding such contract is called in question.3

In general, transactions involving the use of confederate currency have been sustained by the State courts, where tender has been made in good faith and accepted voluntarily. Fraud and duress, however, vitiate such tender and acceptance.5 Mere unwillingness to receive such currency will not invalidate the payment if it be actually received, unless it be of a degree and character such as to invalidate payments not tainted with confederate currency.6

Payments of confederate notes in contracts for the sale of land have not been so unanimously sustained by the courts; the weight of authority is in favor of reducing such consideration to its specie value.7

In a suit upon a promissory note made "payable in current money," it appearing that confederate treasury notes were the only circulating medium at the time and place of maturity, and also in the case of a note payable in "current bank notes" falling due at a time and place where no such notes were in circulation, payments made were reduced to a legal-tender basis.8

The burden of proof that bank-notes were issued in aid of the rebellion is upon the party asserting it, and in the absence

held not binding under act of congress of July 13, 1861, prohibiting intercourse between the inhabitants of the insurrectionary States and other parts of the country.

See also on the subject of confederate money, article on SCALING LAWS. 1. Glasgow v. Lipse, 117 U. S. 327. 2. Opie v. Castleman, 32 Fed. Rep. 511. On the other hand, in Kennedy v. Briere, 45 Tex. 309, it was held error to instruct a jury that a fiduciary could not legally accept confederate money in payment for property sold by such

person.

3. Delmas v. Merchants' Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Wall. (U. S.) 666; Dugger v. Bocock, 104 U. S. 602.

4. King v. King, 37 Ga. 205; Caruthers v. Corbin, 38 Ga. 75; Green v. Jones. 38 Ga. 347. But see Wright v. Overall, 2 Coldw. (Tenn.) 336; Luzenberg v.

Cleveland, 19 La. An. 473; Freeman v. Bass, 34 Ga. 355; Flintt v. Nelson, 15 Rich. (S. Car.) 9; McPherson v. Lynch, 14 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 121; Wiseman v. Hunter, 14 Rich. Eq. (S. Car.) 167; Ferguson v. Morris, 67 Ala. 389; Hyatt v. McBurney, 18 S. Car. 199; Trustees of Howard College v. Turner, 71 Ala. 429.

5. Jones v. Rogers, 36 Ga. 157; Blalock v. Phillips, 38 Ga. 216; Mann v. Lewis, 3 W. Va. 215; Mann v. McVey, 3 W. Va. 232.

6. Jones v. Thomas, 5 Coldw. (Tenn.) 465.

7. Emerson v. Mallet, Phil. Eq. (N. Car.) 234; Bailey v. Stroud, 26 W. Va. 614; McRae v. McNair, 69 N. Car. 12; Bryan v. Harrison, 69 N. Car. 151.

8. Miller v. McKinney, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 93; Jones v. Kincaid, 5 Lea (Tenn.) 677.

of such proof notes of Bank of Tennessee are receivable for taxes.1

V. CONTRACTS PAYABLE IN FOREIGN MONEY.-A contract made here and to be performed here for the payment of a sum stated in the denominations of a foreign currency, is a money contract the same as if made and to be performed in the country where such currency is legal money.2

Where a contract for the payment of money is made in one country payable in the currency of that country, and a suit for breach is brought in another, the plaintiff should recover such a sum in the currency of the locus fori as approximates most nearly to the amount to which the party is entitled in loco contractus calculated by the real and not the nominal par of exchange.3

VI. BILLS OF CREDIT.-No State shall emit bills of credit.1 To "emit bills of credit" means to issue paper intended to circulate through the community for its ordinary purposes as money, which paper is redeemable at a future day.2

Certificates issued by a State receivable in payment for taxes, for fees and salaries of officers, etc., for resumption of which the faith of the State is pledged, are bills of credit within the meaning of the constitution, although they are not made legal tender by the State law.3

Notes issued by a bank as a circulating medium by the authority of a State, though not by the State itself nor upon its faith, are not bills of credit within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition, notwithstanding that the State controls exclusively the stock and management of the bank. The power of a State to create corporations is not restricted by the constitutional provision in question. The constitutional provision does not forbid the States or municipal corporations from borrowing money and giving proper securities therefor, such securities not being bills of credit within the meaning of the constitution, nor does it forbid the issuing of auditors' warrants upon the State treasury.6 Individuals and corporations are not included in the restriction, and there is no difference in this respect between public and private corporations. Hence city treasury notes, receivable for all. debts and demands due the city, are not invalid because of infringing the constitutional provision.7

Confederate treasury notes are not void as being within the provision regarding bills of credit, but are illegal because issued in aid of insurrection.8

discharge of the seaman by the master, such coin is to be valued at its rate in the home port, under the laws of the U. S. But if the payment is a voluntary advance on the part of the master made with the assent of the seaman, the foreign coin is to be estimated according to its value at the place of payment. The Cabot, Abb. Adm. 150.

1. U. S. Constitution, art. 1, § 10. 2. MARSHALL, C. J., in Craig v. Missouri. 4 Pet. (U. S.) 410.

3. Craig v. Missouri, Pet. (U. S.) 410; Byrne v. Missouri, 8 Pet. (U. S.) 40. See also City Nat. Bank v. Mahan, 21 La An. 757.

4. Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, 11 Pet. (U. S.) 257; Darrington v. Bank of Alabama, 13 How. (U. S.) 12; Nathans v. Louisiana, S How. (U. S.) 81; Woodruff v. Trapnall, 10 How. (U. S.) 190; Curran v. Arkansas, 15 How. (U. S.) 318; Veazy Bank 7. Fenno, 8 Wall. 552; Central Bank of Georgia v. Little, II Ga. 346; State v. Calvin, R. M. Charl. (Ga.) 151; Lampton v. Com.

Bank, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 301; Bank v. Spilman, 3 Dana (Ky.) 150; Owen v. Branch Bank, 3 Ala. 258; McFarland v. State, 4 Ark. 44. Contra, Linn v. State Bank, 2 Ill. (1 Scam.) 87; Com. Bank v. Clark, Mo. 59; Griffith v. Com. Bank, 4 Mo. 255.

The ground for the distinction made in the United States supreme court cases last cited between certificates of indebtedness issued by a State and notes put in circulation by a bank under the auspices of the State, seems mainly to be that the bank, unlike a sovereign State, is suable, and its funds are within the reach of legal process.

5. McCoy v. Washington Co., 3 Phila. (Pa.) 290.

6. Pagawd v. State, 5 Sim. & M. (Miss.) 491. 7. Smith v. New Orleans, 23 La.

VII. MONEY BILLS.-A constitutional provision requiring money bills to originate in the lower house of the legislature is limited to bills transferring money from the people to the State, and does not include appropriation bills; neither does it prevent the upper house from examining and adjusting property valuation lists returned from the towns.1

MONEYED CAPITAL.-See CAPITAL, vol. 2, p. 727.

MONEYED CORPORATION (See also BANKS AND BANKING),— The New York statutes state that this term shall be construed to mean every corporation having banking powers, or having the power to make loans upon pledges or deposits, or authorized by law to make insurances.2

MONEY, COSTS, CHARGES AND EXPENSES.-"When the legislature mentions 'money, costs, charges and expenses' it means money decreed or ordered to be paid, together with the costs, charges and expenses to be ascertained in the usual way by the officers of the court. I am of opinion, that, with respect to costs, it is enough if they are ascertained by the officer of the court, and that it is not necessary that there should be any order to pay after they are taxed."3

MONEY EXPENDED.-The term "money expended" does not embrace claims for services performed, or moneys expended prior to the date of an agreement in which it is used.a·

MONEY, GOODS OR CHATTELS.-"Money, goods or chattels" in statutes authorizing interpleader issue, includes in "chattels," choses in action.5

MONEY HAD; MONEY PAID; MONEY RECEIVED. See AsSUMPSIT, I Am. & Eng. Encyc. of Law 882; PLEADINGS.

"6

MONEY IN HAND-(See also READY MONEY).-"There is no real difference between 'money in hand' and 'ready money.' MONEY IN THE FUNDS (See also FUND).-Foreign bonds guaranteed by England, not included in this term.7

MONEY LENT FOR GAMING.-Money loaned for the purpose of paying a bet after it has been lost "is not money knowingly lent or advanced for gaming" within the meaning of the statute as to gaming, and consequently cannot be recovered by the lender under this statute.9

MONEY MADE AND PAID.-See vol. 13, p. 1197.

policy and express law of a State, the
holder thereof cannot recover back the
consideration given for them, because he
is charged with notice of the wrong and
in pari delicto with the officers issuing
them. Nor will a law passed by an in-
surrectionary government be sufficient
to validate such notes. Thomas v.
Richmond, 12 Wall. (U. S.) 349.

1. 126 Mass. 549, 557, et seq.
2. Vol. 1 Birdseye's N. Y. Stat. p.

211.

3. Jones v. Williams, 10 L. J. Ex. 257; 8 M. & W. 349.

4. Littlefield v. Winslow, 19 Me. 394. 5. Robinson v. Jenkins, 34 S. J. 210; 6 Times Rep. 158,

6. Parker v. Marchant, 12 L. J. Ch. 387. 7. Burnie v. Getting, 2 Coll. 324. See Grant v. Mussett, 8 W. R. 330; s. c. L. T. 133. 54

8. 86 Wm. IV, ch. 41, § 1.

9. Re Lister 26 W. R. S06; 7 Cent. L. J. 161.