{
  "id": 11278333,
  "name": "HENRY D. ROBESON, Adm'r. &c. v. SAMUEL BROWN and ANOTHER",
  "name_abbreviation": "Robeson v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1869-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "554",
  "last_page": "556",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "63 N.C. 554"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 3361,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.43,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.649325487957908e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9711631836450697
    },
    "sha256": "b94392d2834e875276637aefab847c429721c5cc8b9b2a8109f9e5e6f9cb30ec",
    "simhash": "1:b7506c483826774f",
    "word_count": 581
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:51:48.011339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HENRY D. ROBESON, Adm\u2019r. &c. v. SAMUEL BROWN and ANOTHER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Dice, J.\nThe 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.\nWe have carefully considered the ordinance o\u00ed 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:\n1. 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.\n- 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. 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.\nLet this be certified &c.\nPer' Curiam. - Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dice, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stubbs and Battle & Sons, for the appellant.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HENRY D. ROBESON, Adm\u2019r. &c. v. SAMUEL BROWN and ANOTHER.\nThe Constitution, of the United States does not forbid a State from altering the rule of evidence. which heretofore excluded parol evi- \u2022 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:\n1. 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:\nThis' division applies only to contracts where Confederate money was the consideration.\n2. 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.\n(Woodfin v. Sluder, Phil. 200, cited and approved.)\nDebt, tried before Jones, J., at Spring Term 1869 of the Superior Court of Maetin.\n'\u00aeyThe 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.\nHis 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.\n\u2022 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.\nVerdict and Judgment, for $102,40 and $33,38 damages, &c.\nThe plaintiff thereupon appealed.\nStubbs and Battle & Sons, for the appellant.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0554-01",
  "first_page_order": 570,
  "last_page_order": 572
}