TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Robeson, Adm'r, C. v. Brown and Another

Henry D. Robeson, Adm'r. C. v. . Samuel Brown and Another.

Robeson, Adm'r, C. v. Brown & Another, 63 N.C. 554 (1869)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1869
Judges
Dice
Citations
63 N.C. 554
Headnotes
The Constitution, of the United States does not forbid a State from altering the rule of evidence. which heretofore excluded parol evi- • dence offered to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract. The rule for applying the Seale, under the ordinance of Oct. 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, cc. 38 and 39, is: 1. Money contracts are presumed to be solvable in Confederate money, and the value thereof must be estimated by the jury in coin, according to the legislative scale, and then the depreciation of United States Treasury notes must be added to the amount as estimated in coin: This' division applies only to contracts where Confederate money was the consideration. 2. In all other eases of contracts, the value of the property, or other consideration, maybe shown in evidence, and the jury must estimate such value in U. S. Treasury notes.
Summary
Debt, tried before Jones, J., at Spring Term 1869 of the Superior Court of Maetin. '®yThe plaintiff declared on a bond for $250,00, dated 22d Dec. 1862; and on the trial offered to prove that it was given for a mule, worth $250,00. His Honor excluded the testimony, upon the ground that the parties had themselves fixed the value, by the bond.; and be instructed the jury that they must apply the scab prescribed by the Legislature, and give the plaintiff the value of the contract by that rule. • The plaintiff then asked his Honor to instruct the jury further, that after ascertaining the value in gold according to the rule laid down, they should add to that sum the present depreciation of national currency, which he offered to show was 33 per cent. This also his Honor declined to do. Verdict and Judgment, for $102,40 and $33,38 damages, &c. The plaintiff thereupon appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dice

Dice, J.

The principle is well settled that parol evidence is inadmissible to contradict or vary the terms of a written contract. But this is only a rule of evidence, and may at any time be changed by the Legislature without impairing the contract. The Convention and Legislature have seen proper to change this rule of evidence in regard to certain classes of contracts, and in so doing they did not come in conflict with the Constitution of the United States, Woodfin v. Sluder, Phil. 200.

We have carefully considered the ordinance oí Oct. 18th 1865, and the acts of 1866, ch. 38 and 39, and think that they establish the following rules as to the contracts to which they apply:

1. Money contracts are presumed to be solvable in Confederate money, and the value thereof must be estimated by the jury in coin, according to the legislative scale, and then the depreciation of United States Treasury Notes must be added to such nominal amount of coin. The Legislative scale only applies to contracts where Confederate money was the consideration.

- 2. In all other kinds of contracts the value of the property or other consideration may be shown in evidence, and the jury must estimate such value in United States Treasury Notes.

*556 His Honor in the Court below erred in his construction of the ordinance and acts referred to, and the judgment must be .reversed, and a venire de novo awarded.

Let this be certified &c.

Per' Curiam. - Venire de novo.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 12 cases

View all citing references →
1870–1871: 31872–1873: 31874–1875: 51888–1889: 118702026peak 1874 · 5

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Whitfield70 N.C. 356 (1874)
  2. Halliburton v. Carson5 S.E. 912 (N.C. 1888)
  3. Henry King Ex'r v. W. & W. R. R. Co.66 N.C. 277 (1872)
  4. McKesson and Hunt v. Jones, Mendenhall and Carter66 N.C. 258 (1872)
  5. Cable v. Hardin67 N.C. 472 (1872)
  6. Farmer v. Willard71 N.C. 284 (1874)

Most recent

  1. Halliburton v. Carson5 S.E. 912 (N.C. 1888)
  2. Wimbish Co. v. Miller .72 N.C. 523 (1875)
  3. Bryan ex rel. Ricks v. Harrison71 N.C. 478 (1874)
  4. Farmer v. Willard71 N.C. 284 (1874)
  5. State v. Whitfield70 N.C. 356 (1874)
  6. State v. Whitfield70 N.C. 355 (1874)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list