{ "id": 1864493, "name": "Burton v. Brooks", "name_abbreviation": "Burton v. Brooks", "decision_date": "1868-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "215", "last_page": "219", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "25 Ark. 215" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "5 Ark., 261", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727080, 8727090 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/5/0261-01", "/ark/5/0261-02" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ark., 255", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727098 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/6/0255-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 Ark., 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 Ark., 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8728452 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/4/0145-01" ] }, { "cite": "23 Ark., 204", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1865998 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/23/0204-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 456, "char_count": 7360, "ocr_confidence": 0.369, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8889754553645889e-07, "percentile": 0.7287531049107496 }, "sha256": "4e40d475d7c8ab4d8bd51d07749fb7f9c8648de8bd131259ba2a71b5d0cea219", "simhash": "1:fb6db82b4efabe63", "word_count": 1287 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:02:20.284265+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Justice 'Wilshire being disqualified, did not sit in this ease. Hon. W. Story, special Chief Justice." ], "parties": [ "Burton v. Brooks." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Gregg, J.\nIn this case the plaintiff below, in the Craighead circuit court, brought a suit of debt by petition against the appellant, on an instrument, as follows, to wit:\n\u201c $159. Craighead county, Ark., April 8,1865.\n\u201cFor value received, due A. T. Brooks one hundred and fifty-nine dollars, to be paid in greenback currency, to bear interest at the rate of ten per cent, per annum.\n\u201cA. B. BURTON.\u201d\nAt the return term the defendant appeared and interposed his demurrer, in short, to the plaintiff\u2019s petition. The court overruled the demurrer, and the defendant then craved oyer, and filed four pleas. \u2022 The first alleging in general terms that there never was any legal consideration.\n2d. That the note was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, but avers no facts showing the fraud, &c.\nThe 3d plea alleges that the note was obtained by menaces, threats and duress.\nThe 4th plea alleges that the note was not stamped, as required by the act of the United States Congress, to which the defendant appended his affidavit that the facts set forth in the pleas \u201c upon the information of this defendant are substantially true, and further he saith notwhich was certainly an insufficient verification of the pleas; but the plaintiff below saw fit to pass over that, as well as the imperfections in the pleas, and filed his general replication to the pleas, and upon issues thereto made up, the parties went to trial before a jury, and a verdict for $159 debt, and $15^^. damages, was found for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered according to the finding.\nThe defendant filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled, and he excepted. He then filed his motion in arrest of judgment, which was also overruled, and he excepted, and prayed an appeal to this court.\nThe bill of exceptions shows that the defendant excepted to the opinions and ruling of the court, in allowing the note to be read in evidence; but, so far as we can determine from the transcript, the note may have been properly stamped, and it was in no way at variance with the instrument set out in the petition, and was properly admitted, and the evidence was amply sufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury.\nAppellant\u2019s counsel here insist that the admission in the record, \u201cthat his,\u201d appellant\u2019s, \u201cwitness, Gatton, would, if present, state that, when the note was given, appellant was influenced to execute the same by menaces and threats of plaintiff, and others acting in concert with him,\u201d and the agreement of the parties that the jury should consider the proof as if Gatton was swearing to the same, should be taken and considered by the court as an absolute admission of the facts proposed to be proved by Gatton. This court holds that under our practice, and the statute regulating continuances, if an application is made for a continuance, setting out what the applicant expects to prove by an absent witness, the opposing party can not force such applicant to a trial without admitting such statement of the witness\u2019 testimony to be absolutely true. But we know of no legal rule prohibiting the parties from agreeing that a certain statement might go before the jury as testimony, and not as admitted facts ; hence there was no error in overruling the motion for a new' trial.\nThe motion in arrest of judgment, assigns as causes: First, \u201cthat the petition does not aver that the note was stamped.\u201d Such averment was not necessary. The statute prescribes the form of the petition. Gould\u2019s Dig., p. 130; see Rawlings v. Patty, et al., &c., 23 Ark., 204. No averments other than the copy were necessary.\nSecondly. \u201c That the note was stamped at an improper time.\u201d This is no cause for arresting the judgment.\nThirdly. \u201c That the note was not for the direct payment of money;\u201d and upon this the counsel chiefly relied in this court.\nIt has been held, repeatedly, by this court, that petition in .debt can be sustained only in cases for the direct payment of money. Mitchell v. Walker, 4 Ark., 145; Blevins v. Blevins, ib., 441; Hawkins v. Watkins, 5 Ark., 488. But this brings us to the inquiry, whether or not this is such note or instrument in writing. This court held, in the case of Wilburn v. Greene, 6 Ark., 255, tha;t a note payable in Arkansas money was payable in cash or current funds; and in Graham v. Adams, 5 Ark., 261, that a note for good current money,of this State was payable in specie.\nIn the case before the court, the note is .payable in greenback, currency. Had the words \u201cgreenback currency\u201d been left out, it would be sufficiently clear that the parties intended that it should be satisfied in legal tender notes or spiecie \u2014 such being the established currency of the country. Greenback money or currency, is not defined by law, and if we refer to the common use of the term \u201c greenbacks,\u201d we find it applied to the issues of currency circulated by. the Grovei\u2019nment during the late rebellion.\nBy acts. of Congress of July 17, and August 5, 1861, see Session Acts, p. 261 and 313, and of Feb. 12 and Feb. 25, 1862, Session Acts,p. 338 and 345, the Secretary of the Treasury was .authorized to issue, oxx the credit of the United States, $160,000,000, and, fronx the stamp of the paper upoxi which these notes were issxxed, they were sooix popularly kxxown as greenback currency, and they were legal tender notes, receivable in payment of private as well as most public dxxes. Then we can not hold, as insisted by counsel, that gx\u2019eenback currency means issues of the national baxxks, which banks wore created by acts of Congress of February 25,1863, sessioxx acts of 1862 aixd 1863, page 565, and 3d of June, 1864; session acts of 1863 and 1864, page 99, subseqxxent to the time \u201cgreenback curreney\u201d was in circulation. In this view of the case, a note made payable in greenback currency, means the same as if payable in United States currency, or legal tender notes, and is of the same validity as if the_term \u201c dollars \u201d alone had been used. Therefore, we are of opinion that the circuit court did not err in refusing to arrest the judgment, and the judgment of that court is in all things affirmed with costs.\nChief Justice 'Wilshire being disqualified, did not sit in this ease. Hon. W. Story, special Chief Justice.", "type": "majority", "author": "Gregg, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "'Watkins & Rose, for appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Burton v. Brooks.\nVembication ob plea. Aii affidavit that the facts set forth in the plea, \u201cupon the information of the defendant are substantially true,\u201d is an insufficient verification of a plea.\nEvidence. Where parties stipulate that an agreed statement of what an absent witness would testify to, if present, may be read to a jury, this statement goes to the jury as testimony simply, and not as an absolute admission, \u25a0\nPetition in debt. In petition in debt on a note, the petition need not aver that the note was stamped. No averment is required in the petition except a copy of the note.\nThe fact that the note upon which suit isbrought was stamped at an improper lime is no cause for arresting the judgment.\nPetition in debt can be sustained only in cases for the direct payment of money.\nA note payable in \u201c greenback currency\u201d must he construed as payable in United States currency or legal tender notes, and not in issues of the national banks; and is of the same validity as if the term dollars alone bad been used.\nAppeal from Craighead Circuit Court.\nHon. L. L. Mack, Circuit Judge.\n'Watkins & Rose, for appellant." }, "file_name": "0215-01", "first_page_order": 239, "last_page_order": 243 }