
    JOHN GREEN v. DEMPSEY BROWN.
    A note for money dated May 9tli 1863, is_ liable'to 'tbe opératióñ of the - seals law, notwithstanding that-it is payable in “ good bankable currency.” ■ ....■ .. • , ■
    
      (Laws v. Rycroft, ante 100, approved.)
    Covenant, upon a note given as the price of. a horse,• tried before Cloud, J., at Spring Term 1870, of Davidson, Court.
    The note, was a plain one, for “ four hundred dollars in-good bankable currency,” payable at twelve months', with, interest from .date, and was dated May -9th 1863,
    The main question below was, whether .it washable to be-scaled, or was payable in specie. • -Upon-this point witnesses; were, examined; and his Honor charged..the- jury, that if they .were to be believed, the expression, “ in good bankable-currency,” meant currency equivalent t,o gold- and silver.
    Verdict and judgment accordingly; .the defendant'appealed,
    
      'Gilmer, foi the appellant,
    
      Mendenhall and T.. J. Wilson, contra,
    
   Settle, J.

The bond upon which this suit is brought, was'executed during the war, and if nothing had .been said .as to the currency in which it was solvable, the presumption would have been, under our recent legislation, that it was solvable in Confederate money. Is this presumption rebutted, when the parties in endeavoring to fix a currency in which it may be discharged,' use terms so indefinite as to be unintelligible % We think not.

The words ‘‘good, bankable currency” must be interpreted according to the state of the facts and the popular understanding of these terms at the time the note was given Laws v. Rycroft, ante 100.

From this standpoint we have endeavored to reconcile these terms,, but have been unable to do so. Bankable currency may have meant either bank notes, or Confederate Treasury notes, for the banks were dealing in both in 1863 and 1864. But when they prefix the word “ good ” to the “ bankable currency ” of that period, we are as unfortunate as the witnesses who were examined to explain these terms, .and confess our inability to understand them. Indeed there was no such thing at that time as “ good bankable currency.” They could not have used the word “ good ” in the sense of par, for none of the currency then used was at par. It may be that they employed, the word “good” as distinguished from counterfeit; this, however, is all conjecture. But viewing the transaction in the light of that day, we can safely say that they did not intend by these terms to make the bond payable in gold and silver. The result will be, if we discard these words as unintelligible, that the bond will stand like all others of that date, and the presumption will be that it is solvable in Confederate currency; but . as it was given for a horse, that fact may be shown, and the value of the horse will be the value of the contract.

There is error. Let this be certified, &c.

Peb Cttbiam. Neversed.  