David Davis

“ If so, hard as the bargain is, there is no good reason in the state of the pleadings why it should not be enforced. The answer sets up only two defences, the illegality of a contract based on Confederate notes, and the inability of Crump to discharge the debt, according to the last condition of the bond, by the neglect of Gavinzel on his departure to Europe, to appoint an attorney in fact to receive the money. ”

“ But if the war continued longer, and he was able to get out of the Confederacy, he was in as good condition as if the war had terminated when he expected it would. There were, however, difficulties to be encountered in getting through the lines, represented by Gavinzel in his testimony 'as the greatest he ever met with in his life.' If unable to overcome these difficulties he would be obliged to stay in Richmond, and Crump would have the opportunity, if he chose to avail himself of it, of paying back the loan in the currency in which he received it. ”

“ If the large sum may be satisfied by the smaller amount, it is only because by the agreement of the parties the appellee had an absolute right to tender payment to the appellant after the 1st of April, 1864, and during the war, in Confederate money, or in what was equivalent thereto, money then bankable in the city of Richmond, independent of the fact of whether or not Gavinzel was in Richmond, or had an agent there duly authorized to receive payment of the bond. ”

“ Whether or not this was a wagering contract, and therefore void, is not a question in the case, as no objection to it on that ground was taken in the answer or on the argument. $The contract was plainly a contract of hazard, mutual hazard. Each party took risks, and each received a consideration for the risk thus taken. Manifestly, the leading object Gavinzel had in the transaction was to lend his money, so that it would not be repaid until the war closed, whether this event occurred before or after the 1st of April, 1864 ”

“ But the last defence, as we have seen, is not sustained, and in regard to the first, this court has held substantially that contracts, based on Confederate currency, will be enforced when made in the usual course of business between persons resident in the insurgent States, and not made in furtherance of the rebellion. ”

“ Newton, 18 Grattan, p. 708; Taylor v. Turley, 33 Maryland, p. 500.
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105) . ”