CONFEDERACY.

1. A contract was entered into between defendant, residing in New Orleans after its occupation by the Federal forces, and the Governor of Mississippi, then one of the Confederate States, for a supply of salt to said Governor in exchange for cotton. To carry out this contract, plaintiff and defendant formed a partnership, plaintiff advancing $5,000. It became impossible to carry it out, and plaintiff sues to recover said sum. Held, that he could not. His claim was too closely connected with an illegal transaction. Bowman v. Gonegal, 19 La. An. 328.

2. A note for services in the Confederate army as a substitute is void, as given for an illegal consideration. Stewart v. Bosley, 19 La. An. 439; Wright v.

Stacey, ib. 449.

See CONFEDERATE MONEY; CONTRACT, 2; CONVERSION, 2; DONATIO CAUSA MORTIS; LIMITATIONS, STATUTE OF, 3; STAY LAW, 1.

CONFEDERATE MONEY.

1. Courts will not enforce a contract, the consideration of which was Confederate notes.-Hunley v. Scott, 19 La. An. 161; Reeve v. Doughty, ib. 164; Huck v. Haller, ib. 257; Washburn v. Offut, ib. 269; King v. Huston, ib. 288; McCracken v. Poole, ib. 359; Howard v. Kirwin, ib. 432; Platt v. Maples, ib. 459; Norton v. Dawson, ib. 464; Windham v. Cerf, ib. 498; Peltz v. Long, 40 Mo. 532. See Hale v. Sharp, 4 Coldw. 275; Walker v. Walker, ib. 300; Fain v. Headerick, ib. 327. But see Cherry v. Walker, 36 Ga. 327.

2. A promissory note, given in consideration of a loan of Confederate Treasury notes, is void. Said Confederate notes were not, however, bills of credit issued by a State, but were illegal, because issued by a pretended government, organized by citizens of the United States, who were in rebellion (Bank of Tennessee v. Union Bank of Louisiana, 2 Am. Law Rev. 346, disapproved).- Baily v. Milner, (U.S. Dist. Ct.) 35 Ga. 330.

3. Evidence that Confederate money was the common currency at the time notes in suit were made, and that contracts were understood to be in such money unless it was otherwise specified, is admissible; and then, under the Scaling Ordinance of November, 1865, verdict may be for the value in good money of the consideration of such notes at the time they were made. - Oliver v. Coleman, 36 Ga. 552. But see Leslie v. Laugham, 40 Ala. 524.

4. A will gave legacies of "dollars." Evidence having been admitted that at the time of its execution, Confederate money was the currency, held, that, under the Ordinance of November, 1865, proof should have been admitted of the value of the same at that time.-Elder v. Ogletree, 36 Ga. 64. But see Whatley v. Slaton, ib. 653.

5. If the holder of a note permits a payment in Confederate notes to be indorsed upon it, the court will leave the parties where it finds them. - Luzenberg v. Cleveland, 19 La. An. 473. See Mordecai v. Stewart, 36 Ga. 126.

6. A guardian who, in good faith, received payment of debts due his ward in Confederate money, and invested his ward's funds in Confederate bonds, under the authority of an act of the legislature of a seceded State, is entitled to be credited with the amount of such investment, and the amount of such funds re

maining in his hands at the end of the war. - Watson v. Stone, 40 Ala. 451. See Dockery v. McDowell, ib. 476; Neilson v. Cook, ib. 498; Michael v. State, ib. 361.

7. Otherwise, of receipts of such money by a guardian, May 7, 1865, when the de facto Government in Alabama had been overthrown.- Neilson v. Cook, 40 Ala. 498.

8. Plaintiffs' attorney acknowledged satisfaction of their claim against defendants, on receipt of the amount in Confederate money, April 22, 1863, without their assent. The satisfaction was annulled, and a mortgage, by which said claim was secured, was ordered to stand in plaintiffs' favor. - Railey v. Bagley, 19 La. An. 172; Garthwaite v. Wentz, ib. 196; Thomas v. Thompson, ib. 487. 9. The plea of a tender of payment in Confederate money is bad, although said money was the circulating currency at the time. Graves v. Hardesty, 19 La. An. 186. See Mordecai v. Stewart, 36 Ga. 126; Sharp v. Bonner, ib. 418, See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1; CONVERSION, 1.

CONFESSION.

A confession made in reply to a question by a policeman who had not arrested the prisoner, and did not have him in custody at the time, is admissible; although the question assumed the prisoner's guilt. - People v. Wentz, 37 N. Y. 303; Miller v. State, 40 Ala. 54. See King v. State, ib. 314.

CONFISCATION ACT.-See PARDON.

CONFLICT OF FEDERAL AND STATE AUTHORITY.

1. A plea of autrefois acquit, by a general court-martial under the Act of Congress approved March 3, 1863, § 30, is no defence to an indictment for murder under the laws of a State. State v. Rankin, 4 Coldw. 145.

2. State legislatures may pass laws giving liens on domestic ships for supplies, &c., furnished them in home ports. Such liens are not maritime liens. State courts may, therefore, enforce such liens in rem. The cases of the Moses Taylor and the Ad. Hine, 4 Wallace, only exclude such process by the State courts against foreign vessels. By SUTHERLAND, J., Matter of the Steamship Circassian, 50 Barb. 490; acc. Bird v. Steamboat Josephine, 50 Barb. 501; Cavender v. Steamboat Fanny Barker, 40 Mo. 235. See Boylan v. Steamboat Victory, 40 Mo. 244; Hogan v. Steamboat Minnie, ib. 264; Morrison v. Steamboat Burns, 41 Mo. 491.

3. But when a mariner's claim for wages accrues beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the State, the admiralty jurisdiction is exclusive. - Connelly v. Steamboat Bee, 40 Mo. 263.

See ATTACHMENT.

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

1. T., residing in Pennsylvania, conveyed land there to C., his wife not joining in the deed; C. gave a bond for a part of the purchase money, payable when the wife's interest in the land should be discharged. T.'s wife left him, and he afterwards went to Iowa, acquired a domicile there, procured a divorce, and died. His wife resided meanwhile in Pennsylvania, and survived him, not having

released her said interest. Held, that C. was not liable on his bond. The Iowa court had no jurisdiction over the wife, and did not destroy her claim for dower by the divorce. Colvin v. Reed, 55 Pa. 375.

2. A firm note was made, and was to be paid in New York. Afterwards, one of the partners was released by plaintiffs. By the statute of New York, said release would not have discharged the others, and there was a similar statute in Michigan. Held, that the other partners were not discharged. Holdridge v. Farmers' & M. Bank of R., 16 Mich. 66.

See CORPORATION, 5; FOREIGN JUDGMENT; RAILROAD, 1; USURY, 3.
CONSCRIPTION. - See DONATIO CAUSA MORTIS.

CONSIDERATION. See CONFEDERATE MONEY, 1, 2.

CONSIGNOR.

Defendants ordered tobacco of plaintiffs at Cleveland, to be sent by rail to East Saginaw, giving as a reason for sending by rail, that the railroad company would be liable for the risks. Plaintiffs sent the tobacco, under a bill of lading, exempting the company from liability for loss by fire. The tobacco was destroyed by fire on the road, and defendants refused to pay, because plaintiffs had accepted a restrictive bill of lading. The railroad companies at Cleveland had notified shippers, that they would not forward except on a liability restricted as above. It was not shown that said companies were under legal obligations to carry under the common law liabilities of common carriers. Judgment for the plaintiffs. -Gordon v. Ward, 16 Mich. 360; s.c. ante, 2 Am. Law Rev. 575.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

1. An ordinance of the Convention of 1865, that either party to an executory contract, made during the war, might give in evidence, in any suit for the enforcement of the same, the consideration and value thereof, at any time; and the intention of the parties as to the particular currency in which payment was to be made, and the value of such currency at any time; and that the verdict and judgment should be on principles of equity: held not to impair the obligation of contracts. Slaughter v. Culpepper, 35 Ga. 25; Taylor v. Flint, ib. 124.

2. The Constitution of Missouri provides that no person shall be prosecuted in any civil action, &c., for any act done by him after Jan. 1, 1861, by virtue of any military authority, &c., to do such act, in pursuance of orders received by him from any person vested with such authority. Forcible entry and detainer was brought for a cause of action existing previous to this provision, which was pleaded. Held, that said provision, in taking away the right to recover damages in this suit, did not destroy a vested right, nor was it otherwise unconstitutional. -Drehman v. Stifel, 41 Mo. 184.

3. A company was incorporated, subject to the provisions of a law allowing, among other things, the legislature to amend, &c., charters. The act of incorporation provided that the company should not be taxed until its dividends amounted to six per cent per annum. A subsequent act subjected all corporations to a tax on each one per cent of dividend, and repealed all inconsistent laws. Held, that the last act applied to said company, and was constitutional. - Commonwealth v. Fayette County R.R. Co., 55 Pa. 452.

See BETTERMENT; CONFEDERACY; CONFEDERATE MONEY, 1, 2, 9; DRAFT; NATIONAL BANK, 2; STAMP, 2; STAY LAW; TAX, 1-5; TEST OATH.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, STATE.

1. A law, so far as it required a court to grant a new trial, in any case in which a final judgment had been rendered, and the period previously limited by law for moving to set the judgment aside, or taking an appeal or writ of error, had expired before the passage of the act; held, invalid, as interfering with vested rights, and an attempt by the legislature to exercise judicial powers.- Davis v. President, &c., of Menasha, 21 Wis. 491. Contra, Page v. Matthews, 40 Ala. 547; Noles v. Noles, ib. 576.

2. Otherwise, when such judgment is for the State; as the latter may waive its own rights.- Calkins v. State, 21 Wis. 501.

3. A prisoner may waive his constitutional immunity from being placed a second time in jeopardy, and does so when, by a proceeding instituted by himself, he procures a reversal of his conviction. The fact that, before reversal, he had suffered part of the punishment, makes no difference. -Jeffries v. State, 40 Ala. 381. See Hill v. People, 16 Mich. 351, post, sub" JURY."

4. The Constitution of Nevada provides that no person holding a lucrative office under the United States, shall be eligible to any civil office of profit under that State. Defendant, being U.S. District Attorney, mailed a letter of resig nation, Nov. 5, and was elected Attorney General of the State the next day. Held, that the above provision meant both "incapable of being legally chosen," and "incapable of legally holding;" but that the resignation was complete when the letter was mailed. - State v. Clarke, 3 Nev. 566.

5. The act (1866, c. 74) creating the metropolitan sanitary district of the State of New York is constitutional. Judgment of Supreme Court reversed (MILLER, GROVER, and CLERKE, JJ., dissenting).- Metropolitan Board of Health v. Heister, 37 N.Y. 661. See Commonwealth v. Patch, 97 Mass. 221. See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 2; EMINENT DOMAIN, 2.

CONTRACT.

1. A transfer of partnership property was made to defendants, "subject to the payment by" defendants of all the money which the partnership was bound to pay on account of sewers, &c. The partnership creditor sued defendants for the amount due on said account. Held, that he could recover. Judgment of Superior Court reversed. - Dingledein v. Third Avenue R.R. Co., 37 N.Y. 575. 2. A contract, made in 1862, between French subjects residing in France, and parties residing within the rebel lines and in the rebel States, was not a traffic between enemies, forbidden by the law of nations, the President's proclamation, or the acts of Congress. - Devot v. Marx, 19 La. An. 491.

See BAILMENT; CARRIER; CONFEDERACY; CONFEDERATE MONEY, 1-3; CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 1, 3; CUSTOM; ILLEGAL CONTRACT; LEGAL TENDER, 1-3; SALE; SLAVE, 1, 3, 4; STAY LAW; SUNDAY, 2-4; TELEGRAPH, 2; USURY.

CONTRIBUTION.

1. Several parties subscribed certain sums for stock, for the purpose of establishing a seminary. Plaintiffs, who were also subscribers, expended money and incurred liabilities in behalf of said seminary, as trustees for the same, both before and after its incorporation. Held, that they could not compel the other subscribers to contribute.- Shibley v. Angle, 37 N.Y. 626.

2. Plaintiff gave a bond in the penal sum of $2,000, as surety, and defendants gave another bond in the penal sum of $18,000, for the same principal. Plaintiff was compelled to pay an amount less than the penal sum in his bond. Held, that defendants must contribute in the ratio of the penalty of their bond to that of the plaintiffs. — Armitage v. Pulver, 37 N.Y. 494.

3. A will contained a general direction for the payment of the testator's debts, but designated no fund for the purpose. The estate not specifically devised and bequeathed was insufficient. Held, that specific devisees must contribute ratably with specific legatees. -Brant's Will, 40 Mo. 266.

CONVERSION.

1. A. sold goods for Confederate money, for and at the request of B., who, mistaking his legal rights, refused to accept the proceeds. A. thereupon deposited the amount with his bankers, in his own name, and notified B. that it was subject to his order at any time. Confederate money became worthless, and B. now ratifies the sale, and demands the value of the proceeds at that time. Held, that he could not recover; the fact that the defendant did not make a special deposit did not render him liable for a loss arising from the nature of the proceeds themselves (HARRIS, J., dissenting).- Ansley v. Anderson, 35 Ga. 8; s.c. ante, 3 Am. Law Rev. 144. See Fulton Bank v. Marine Bank, 2 Wallace, 252. 2. S., a private citizen, having done no act of hostility to either party, was deprived of his wagon and mules while attempting to escape from the approaching Confederate forces, by Y., a Confederate soldier, at the command of Y.'s superior officer. Held, that Y. was liable, and not justified by the command. Yost v. Stout, 4 Coldw. 205; Witherspoon v. Woody, ib. 605. See Hawkins v. Nelson, 40 Ala. 553.

3. A Confederate soldier took a horse which was the private property of a Federal soldier, and had never been used in the military service, sold it, and applied the proceeds to his own use. Held, that he was liable in trover.- Barnhill v. Phillips, 4 Coldw. 1.

See EMBEZZLEMENT; TELEGRAPH, 2.

CORPORATION.

1. A corporation did not keep the books required by law; but the facts which should have appeared in such books, and to which the relator was entitled, did appear in the stock ledger, together with other matters which were confidential. Held, that the relator was entitled to an inspection of the stock ledger, and a mandamus was granted by GILBERT, J.-People v. Pacific Mail Steamship Co., 50 Barb. 280.

2. A board allowed a bill of a director for extra services. The interested director was present, and without him there would not have been a quorum. Held, that their action was void, and that a stockholder might sue for himself and others who should come in, to prevent the payment of said bill by the treasurer of the company.-Butts v. Wood, 37 N.Y. 317.

3. The franchise of a corporation cannot be taken on execution. - Stewart v. Jones, 40 Mo. 140.

4. New York St. 1848, c. 40, § 18, makes members of corporations liable for debts due to servants, &c., of the corporation, for services performed for it.