WILLIAM J. MOYE, Adm’r., &c., v. WILLIAM J. POPE.
A question as to the value of certain cotton, the consideration of a note given at an administrator’s sale in Greene County in 1863, is to be settled with reference to the tóme and place oí its sale and delivery ; and evidence as to what it was worth within the Federal lines, (whither it could not be transported but in violation of law,) or as to what it was sold for, is incompetent.
Civil action, tried before Jones, J., at Spring Term 1870, of Pitt Court.
*544The action whs brought upon a note for $403.00, payable at six months, elated October 15, 1863, and given for the price of two bales of cotton bought at an administrator’s sale in Greene County. The price bid was fifty, cents a pound.
On the day of sale, the defendant-asked the plaintiff if he would accept. Confederate money then, and the latter .replied that the-law required him- to take a bond and-security, and sell upon a credit of six months. He did not ' say what he would take when the nóte became due.
The plaintiff asked of several witnesses' what was- the value ;'of cótton Within the Federal, lines, but. upon objection by the defendant, the questions were ruled'out, as also-was another question by him, as to' what the defendantafterwafds received for the' cotton.-' To these rulings =he excepted.
The plaintiff asked the Court to instruct the-jury :•
1. That there was -some -evidence of a .special contract, to pay for the cotton in good money : and, - : - ....
-2. - That there was ¡evidence of the value and price of 'cotton at the time and place of sale. ,: . .
The Court instructed the jury to ascertain the value of the cotton , at the time and place of sale, taking into conside ration the whole of the testimony.
Verdict for $108.84, of. which $80 is principal money. Eule, &c. Judgment accordingly. Appeal by the plaintiff.
Howard and Battle & Sons, for the appellant,'
cited Cherry v. Savage ante, 103; Laws v. Rycroft ante, 98, and Coppell v. Half 7 Wall. 542.
Hilliard, gontrg,
cited Robeson v. Brown, 63 N. C., 554; Garrett v. Smith, ante, 93, and Coppell v. Hall, (ubi supra.)
EjEaídk', J.
The value of’the cotton at the time'and place *545of sale and delivery, was the question. As tending to show the value, the plaintiff offered to prove the price of cotton on the other side of the military line between the Confederate and United States forces.14
It was unlawful to trade across the line. ' There was -no market to which the defendant could take the cotton beyond the line, , without violating the laws, of both governments'. The Courts will not investigate - the hazard of committing crime, or the value of successful adventure against the laws. The evidence was, therefore, properly ruled out. ,' ■,, Eor the same purpose the-plaintiff-offered to prove the price at which the defendant sold the cotton. But it did not appear wheh or where he sold;- and, therefore, it could'throw no light on the question, and was irrelevant. .
There was no evidence to; support the first special,instruction asked for by the plaintiff; to'wit, that there was. a'special contract to pay the amount bid in “.good money■' mw¡
, The. second; special instruction, was in substance given ¡ as asked for by. the plaintiff.-
There is.ño error;
• The plaintiff is entitled tb' judgment, here;for;fheusaíne amount as thejudgment below, but he. is not. entitled'to- the costs of the appeal, as it. was -his appeal; -i Judgment against the plaintiff for the -costs of fhis.-Oowrt.-ii
. Per Curiam;. ,,f-,^fdrjnpd.