{
  "id": 8698521,
  "name": "KELLY W. DAVIS v. S. GLENN and another",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Glenn",
  "decision_date": "1875-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "519",
  "last_page": "520",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. 519"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Ired. 664",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 Ired. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 N. C. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 N. C. 559",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683238
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/64/0559-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3528,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.489,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.755712791342023e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8331111196058149
    },
    "sha256": "7cd64816dedebf209333b7eccf9c7f07b84c29632bf411ddfabd326b2e118d84",
    "simhash": "1:9196eaa94600f05a",
    "word_count": 642
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:46.712943+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "KELLY W. DAVIS v. S. GLENN and another."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Rodman, J.\nThis was an action to recover on a note in the following form:\n\" Six months after date we promise to pay K. W. Davis four hundred and twenty dollars in current funds when called for.\n(Signed,) S. D. GLENN, [Seal.]\nJAMES DAYIS, [Seal.]\nAugust 15th, 1864.\nThere was no proof as to what was the consideration of the note. No demand for payment was made until after the close of the war, and there was no tender of payment.\nThe question is whether the note is subject to the scale.\nThe difficulty in applying the law to the contract arises from the uncertainty as to what time the phrase \u201c current funds \u201d was meant to apply to, whether to time of the making of the note, or of its maturity, or of the demand of payment after its maturity.\nOf the numerous cases on Confederate contracts in our recent reports, not one exactly resembles this. In Howard v. Beatty, 64 N. C. 559, the note sued on was dated 3d of April, 1865, payable at twelve months in current money. It was made and became payable during the war, and there was no ground to take it out of the scale.\nIn McKesson v Jones, 66 N. C. 259, the note was dated 14th November, 1863, and was payable two years after date in the current funds of the country when due, which phrase clearly made it payable, under the circumstances, in United States currency.\nIt must be confessed that the construction of the present in strument is very uncertain. We are. of opinion, however, that the note became due at the end of six months from its date; after that period, it became like a note originally made payable on demand; it bore interest; the debtors were at liberty to tender payment of it; it could be sued on without a demand. We do not think it resembled the note in Ormond v. Maye, 11 Ired. 364, which was to be paid when presented. A note payable on demand has from an early period received with us, a different construction from a bill payable at sight, or on other like condition. It follows from this that the words \u201c current funds \u201d mean Confederate money and that the note under our legislation, must be scaled at its date. The only objection to this construction is that it gives but little weight to the words, \u201cwhen called for.\u201d Probably they were understood to mean no more than to remove from the debtor the obligation of seeking the creditor to make payment, the creditor taking the duty of calling for the money on himself. It has been held in Virginia that a note which becomes payable on a day which happens tobe alter the war \u201cin current funds,\u201d was subject to their scale. Sexton v. Windell, Grat. 534.\nWe consider it unnecessary to consider the motion made on affidavits to vacate the judgment.\nPer Curiam. Judgment reversed and venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Rodman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mendenhall & Staples, Shipp c& Bailey, for appellant.",
      "W. P. Galdwell and Collins, contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "KELLY W. DAVIS v. S. GLENN and another.\nA note dated Angust 15th, 1864, payable six months after date, in current funds, when called for, became due at the end of six months from date, and was subject to the Legislative scale.\n(Howard, v. Beatty, 64 N. G. Rep. 559; McKesson v. Jones, 66 N. 0. Rep. 238; Ormond v Meye, 11 Ired. 664 cited and approved.)\nCivil action for the recovery of a note of hand, tried by his Honor Judge Kerr, at Fall Term, 1874, of Guilvoed Superior Court.\nThe case had been submitted to referees, who found for the plaintiff. This finding was affirmed by the Judge of the Superior Court, when the defendant appealed.\nThe facts are sufficiently set out in the opinion of Justice Rodman.\nMendenhall & Staples, Shipp c& Bailey, for appellant.\nW. P. Galdwell and Collins, contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0519-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 530
}