____________________________________________________________________________
William H. Bizzell & Edwin Owens
vs.
William A. Brewer as Administrator
of John Brewer, deceased.
A bond for "one hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid in any current notes
of the Bank of the State of Arkansas," is payable in the notes of said bank
at their nominal value, regardless of their depreciation.
This construction accords with common sense, and the popular meaning of the
terms used in the obligation.
In covenant on such obligation, the plaintiff must prove the value of such
bank paper, otherwise he is not entitled to judgment for any sum.
If the judgment is for the full amount of the obligation, and the evidence
is not put upon the record, this court will presume that the bank notes were
at par.
But if the evidence is put upon the record, and it appears that the
plaintiff offered no proof as to the value of the notes, and yet took
judgment for the full amount of the obligation, the judgment will be
reversed.
Writ of Error to the Circuit
Court of Sevier County.
This was an action of covenant brought by William A. Brewer, as
administrator of John Brewer, deceased, against (William H.) Bizzell and
(Edwin) Owens, and determined in the Sevier circuit court, at the July Term
1847, before Hon. C.C. Scott, then one of the circuit judges.
The obligation declared on, is in these words: "On or before the first day
of January next, we promise to pay John Brewer, or order, the sum of one
hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid in any current notes of the Bank of
the State of Arkansas, for value received: this the 16th day of May, 1842."
Signed and sealed by defendants (William H. Bizzell and Edwin Owens).
Defendants (William H. Bizzell and Edwin Owens) pleaded payment in current
notes of the Bank of the State of Arkansas, to which issue was taken. The
cause was submitted to the court, sitting as a jury by consent, and the
court found for plaintiff (William A. Brewer as administrator of John Brewer
deceased), and rendered judgment for $191 damages. Defendants (William H.
Bizzell and Edwin Owens) took a bill of exceptions, as follows:
On the trial, defendants (William H. Bizzell and Edwin Owens by attorneys)
asked a witness, Coulter, the following question: "Were the notes of the
Branches of the State Bank of Arkansas in circulation in the State of
Arkansas on the 1st day of January 1843?" Witness (Coulter) answered in the
affirmative. Defendants (William H. Bizzell and Edwin Owens by attorneys)
then asked witness (Coulter): What was the value of notes of the Branches of
the Bank of the State of Arkansas on the 1st January, 1843, and whether said
notes were not the currency of the country at that time?" To which question
plaintiff (William A. Brewer by attorneys) objected, and the court sustained
the objection, and ruled that the defendants had not the right to ask what
was the value of the notes of the Branches of the Bank of the State of
Arkansas, until they had first proved that said notes were passing as money
in the ordinary transactions of the country, at their nominal value.
Defendants also proved that the notes of the Bank of the State of Arkansas
were from 50 to 60 per cent discount on the 1st January, 1843, and that the
notes of the principal bank were a shade better than the notes of its
branches, but that none of the banks of Arkansas were paying specie at that
time. And there being no further testimony, the court gave judgement for the
full amount of the obligation sued on, to all of which decisions and
judgment of the court, defendants excepted, &c. Defendants (William H.
Bizzell and Edwin Owens) brought error.
Ringo & Trapnell, for the plaintiff.
Watkins & Curran, contra.
C.J. Johnson. The result of this case will necessarily depend upon the
construction that shall be put upon the terms of the contract to enforce
which the suit was instituted.
(William H.) Bizzell and (Edwin) Owens promised to pay (John) Brewer or
order the sum of one hundred and fifty dollars, to be paid in any current
notes of the Bank of the State of Arkansas. The writing was executed on the
16th day of May, A.D. 1842, and made payable on the first day of January,
then next following. This court in the case of Pearson v. Wallace, 7 Ark.
293, when defining the meaning of the terms "current bank notes" said that
"current bank notes are such as are convertible into specie at the counter
where they were issued, and pass at par in the ordinary transactions of the
country." If the parties to this contract had adopted the terms, "current
bank notes," without any restriction as to the bank from which they should
issue, it would have fallen within the definition and rule laid down in the
case referred to, but when it is remarked that it is confined to the current
notes of the State Bank of Arkansas, it is obvious that we must depart from
the strict legal signification, and have recourse to that sense in which
they were generally understood and received by the people. To give to the
terms used their plain and popular sense, they obviously amount to a promise
to pay the sum specified in the notes of the State Bank, at their nominal
value. This we conceive to be the plain and common sense interpretation of
the contract.
We will now proceed to determine whether the circuit court properly excluded
the evidence offered by the defendant(s) (William H. Bizzell and Edwin
Owens) below. He (they) first asked the witness (Coulter) to state whether
the notes of the branches of the State Bank of Arkansas were in circulation
in said State on the first day of January, A.D. 1843 and upon answering in
the affirmative, he (they) then asked him what was the value of the notes of
the Branches of said bank on the first day of January 1843, and whether said
notes were not the currency at that time. The court sustained the objection
to the question relative to the value of the notes of the Branches of the
State Bank, and ruled that he could not enquire into the matter until it was
first proved that said notes were passing as money in the ordinary
transactions of the country. The court erred in this respect, as it was not
necessary to show that the notes of the State Bank were passing as par or
considered as cash under the constructions already given to the terms of
the contract.
The court also erred in another particular. The contract sued upon was a
pure covenant. It did not simply give the makers the privilege of
discharging it in the current notes of the State Bank; but it was expressly
agreed that it was to be paid in that kind of currency. Such being the case
it most unquestionably devolved upon the plaintiff below to show what such
notes were actually worth in money, and until he had made out his case by
competent proof, he was not entitled to a judgement for any sum whatever.
The bill of exceptions purports to embrace all the evidence adduced upon the
trial, and it does not appear that the plaintiff showed himself entitled to
any thing. The defendant below was not required to show what the notes of
the State Bank were worth and could not have been expected to offer
testimony upon that point, unless it was necessary to rebut such as might
have been offered by his adversary. Had no the evidence been reserved, the
legal presumption would have been that the notes of the State Bank were
equal to specie, and that the plaintiff below was entitled to the full
amount expressed upon the face of the covenant, but as the bill of
exceptions purports to contain all the testimony and it is wholly silent
upon that point, the presumption will not hold in favor of the corrections
of the judgment of the circuit court. For this reason also the judgment
must be reversed.
____________________________________________________________________________
Cases: Argued and Decided in the Supreme Court of Arkansas; Reported in the
Fourth English Report; Being the Ninth Arkansas Report, Volume 9.
____________________________________________________________________________
David Kelley 1997