Opinion

Sowers v. . Earnhart

  • 64 N.C. 96
Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Filed
Jan 5, 1870
Status
Published
Author
Dick
On the bench
Dick
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 47.8%

The opinion

Dick, J.

By presumption of law, this note was solvable in Confederate money:

Robeson

v. Brown, 63 N. C. 554 . By way of rebutting this presumption, the plaintiff offered evidence to show that there was an express agreement between the parties at the time of the execution of said note, that it was to be paid “in good money after the war.” There was opposing evidence introduced by the defendant, and this question of fact was fairly submitted by His Honor to the jury, and they gave a verdict for the plaintiff, for the amount specified in the note : See

Garrett

v. Smith, at this term.

The defendant’s counsel insisted in this Court, that the evidence of the collateral contract offered by the plaintiff tended to vary the terms of the written contract as to the time of payment, and for that reason was inadmissible. This construction of the words proved cannot be adopted, as it contradicts the express agreement set forth in the note to pay “ one day after date,” and takes it out of the operation of the remedial statutes referred to in the cases above cited.

*98

The fair and reasonable construction of the collateral contract is to make the words, ‘‘good money after the war,” refer to the kind of money in which the note was to be solvable, and not to the time at which the note was payable.

This construction does not vary the written contract, but explains it in the manner provided for by said remedial statutes.

We think that where words taken in one sense will materially change the contract, and defeat the object of a remedial statute, while they are susceptible of another construction which will give substantial effect to the agreement of the parties, and to a beneficial statute, the latter construction ought to be preferred.

The ruling of His Honor upon the second point in the case was also correct; but it was immaterial, if the evidence satisfied the jury that the parties, by a collateral parol agreement, intended that the note should be solvable in

money, good, after the wm.

There is no error. Let this be certified.

Pee Cueiam. Order reversed.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.