
    Ward & Martin v. Latimer, Bagby & Co.
    Wh'ro suit was brought on an instrument promising to pay at a day certain so many doflars in "eash-uotos: "LTeld, That it was necessary for tho plaintiff to prove the value of the "cash.notes."
    Eiror from Roll River. Suit. on two notes under seal, calling one clay after date for so many dollars in "cashi-notes," `I'here was no proof of the value of tim notes. Tice court. charged the jury that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to prove tile value of tile "cash-notes.''
    Tiimb~e, for p~aiiiLiffs lo error, cited this sanie ease ~n 2 Tex. 1~., 245.
    .l~Toi'riU, for defendants in error.
    It is not necesss~ry to prove the meaning of words in the veroaeelar. (1 Greeul. flv., 63.) Notes include those ~al1ing for cash and those calling for specific articles. A note calling for dollars is definite. It has heoii decided ~lPlcmhig V. Nail, Adm'r, 2 Ten. R., 248,) that a note calling for "current bank-notes,'' is eqaally definite. It is pre-suijied that a note calling for "casli-no~es" conveys the idea that it may be paid 01 (lisCllaIged in other prOmissOry notc~s calling for cash ; it being implied that these "cash-notes,'' ii required, are to be indorsed, by the debtor. Upon the failure to pay in cash-notes at the time stipulabid, the debtor loses his option to pay in cash or cash-notes, and the creditor may treat the demand as for so many dollars, currency.
   LIr'soo3rn, J•

This suit was brought on two contracts tII writing, under seal, ma~1n by the plaintill~ in error, to the defendants in error; one for the payment of $464.20 in cash-notes due since the 1st clay of January, 1845, payable (>110 (my after its date ; the other was for the payment of a different amount, but payable pi~cisely in the same way, iii cash-notes due, ~o.

On the trial in tlie coult below th~ jn(Ige charged the jiuy that it was not ne~es~ary for the plaintiffs to prove the value of the c~s1i-notes mentioned ía the writing obligatory sued on; aI!d no evidence was offered to prove the same.

That this instruction was erroneous we entertain not the least doubt. It was the only material point presented to our eon~iclerahiou touching the merits wlwn tins caine cause was before us two Years ago. On full consideration we (Icduled the point dlirceily to the reverse of the opiiitofl of the district judge as presented to us by the bill of exceptions. We will not again open this question for discnssion. It is unfortunate for the plaintiWs below that they have been subjected to so much cost and delay in the recovery of what was really due on the obligations sued upon; but it results from claiming too much and being sustained in that claim by a mistaken opinion of the law expressed by the court below.

Onr respect for the judge who presided on the trial in this case in the court below forbids the belief tliat ho was aware of the points on which the judgment had been reversed when the cause was first before us. He was doubtless misinformed, and thought that it was on one less essential to the merits and only touching-the regularity of the service of process. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Judgment reversed.  