{
  "id": 8688455,
  "name": "J. R. PALMER v. J. R. LOVE'S Exr's",
  "name_abbreviation": "Palmer v. Love's Exr's",
  "decision_date": "1876-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "163",
  "last_page": "165",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "75 N.C. 163"
    }
  ],
  "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": "8 Wall., 1",
      "category": "reporters:scotus_early",
      "reporter": "Wall.,",
      "case_ids": [
        3444604
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/75/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3234,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.48,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.388194195985048e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6419750726779824
    },
    "sha256": "aed64f340b529bda1a22d610494ae481a051145ee4d5a215d6434d50619acea9",
    "simhash": "1:29a2e6596e4cd2c2",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:21.962704+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. R. PALMER v. J. R. LOVE\u2019S Exr\u2019s."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Byn\u00fcmE, J.\nThe obligation sued on was executed in the month of June; 1868, and it is, therefore, presumed to have been solvable fn Confederate currency. Hilliard v. Moore, 65 N. C. Rep., 640.\nIn King v. The Wil. & Weld. R. R. Co., recently decided in \u25a0\u00abthe Supreme Court of the United States and not yet reported-, lit was held, reversing the decision of this Court in the same ease, (66 N. C. Rep., 277,)' that where a note payable in Confederate currency is given for property, the value of that \u2022currency, at the time and place of the contract, is the true measure of the value of the contract. See, also, Sherrington w. Smith, 8 Wall., 1. As the decision of that Court, in King\u2019s \u00abcase, was based upon the construction of the clause in the Constitution of the United States, forbidding all laws impairing the obligation of contracts, as applied to Confederate motes given for property, it is a binding authority in this \"Court. Accordingly, here the plaintiff must establish what \u25a0his Confederate n\u00f3te of $525, the agreed price of the property sold, was worth in National currency \u25a0 at-the time and place of the contract.\nIt may not always be easy to arrive at the value of Confederate money, at a given time and place. In default of \u2022other and better proof, it would, doubtless, be competent to \u25a0give ;in evidence the value of the property for which the note was given, for the purpose of showing, as near as may he, the value of the Confederate currency named in the note.\nIn the present case, the Court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the property sold. In this there is error.\nPer Curiaj\u00ed, Judgment reversed and venire de novo,",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Byn\u00fcmE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. H. Merriment, for appellant.",
      "No counsel Oorntra in this Court."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. R. PALMER v. J. R. LOVE\u2019S Exr\u2019s.\nA bond executed in June, 1863, nothing to the contrary appearing, is presumed to be solvable in Confederate currency.\nWhere a note, payable in Confederate currency, is given for property, the' value of that currency at the time and place of the contract, is the true-measure of the value of the contract.\n(The case of Hillwd v. Smith, 65 \u00cdT. C. Rep., 540, cited and approved!)\nCivil ActioN, .tried before CANNON, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of Haywood Superior Court.\nThe action was brought upon a bond given by J. R. Love to J. C. Palmer, dated June 5th, 1865. Upon the-trial the. plaintiff offered to prove the consideration of the note, and its value by parol testimony. The Court received the evidence and the defendants excepted. The objection of the-defendant to the reception of parol testimony to prove the-.consideration of the bond was based upon.two grounds :\n1. That the Act authorizing it was void,.because it was in violation of the Constitution of the-United States.\n2. That the plaintiff had not set forth in his complaint the consideration for which thq-notewas given; nor had he given the defendants notice of the kind of property for which the bond was given. - \u25a0\nThere was evidence tending to show that the bond.was-given to secure the payment of the purchase money for various articles of personal property, and also1 tending to' show the value of these articles.\nThere Was a verdict and judgment for the1 plaintiff and the defendants appealed.\nJ. H. Merriment, for appellant.\nNo counsel Oorntra in this Court."
  },
  "file_name": "0163-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 173
}