be paid in Confederate dollars could recover their actual value at the time and place of the contract, in lawful money of the United States. However, there is some authority, not always adhered to, to the effect that a contract based on Confederate notes as a consideration was void and unenforceable, on the ground that the consideration was bills of credit issued by the states contrary to the constitution of the United States, and that the Confederate notes were issued in aid of rebellion and therefore void.5 Acts of state legislatures authorizing guardians, etc., to invest their trust funds in Confederate bonds have been declared unconstitutional as having for their purpose aid to the war against the United States; as depriving the ward of his property without due process of law, by substituting for it that which was not property; and as impairing the obligations of contracts by changing the ward's solvent credits for what was not gold or silver, or their equivalent.

19. Right of Agent to Receive Confederate Notes.-Several decisions go to the extent that if at the time and place of payment Confederate money was generally received in business transactions, and was in fact the current money of the country, an agent's authority to receive such money, in the absence of any directions to the contrary, might be presumed. This rule was applied, not only when the creditor and debtor were within the same state, but when the creditor resided in a state not a member of the Confederacy, and the debtor was within the Confederate lines. Other decisions held that the rule should not be applied where the creditor was within the federal lines, with communication between him and his agent in the Confederacy destroyed. In such a case it was held that no implied authority to receive Confederate money existed, and that a payment to the agent or attorney did not discharge the debt.8

20. Counterfeit Money.-At common law, as between two innocent parties, the taker of counterfeit coin cannot claim recourse against him from whom he took it. This rule must have been based on the ground that parties in equal equities shall not be disturbed. Most paper money gets into circulation through the medium of banks, and other instrumentalities capable of detecting bad money; and

2. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 19 U. S. (L. ed.) 361.

Note: 31 L.R.A. 758.

3. Hale v. Huston, 44 Ala. 134, 4 Am. Rep. 124, overruled by Whitfield v. Riddle, 52 Ala. 467; Ivey v. Lalland, 42 Miss. 444, 97 Am. Dec. 475, 2 Am. Rep. 606.

4. Hale v. Huston, 44 Ala. 134. 4 Am. Rep. 124, overruled by Whitfield v. Riddle, 52 Ala. 467.

5. Thomas v. Taylor, 42 Miss. 651, 2 Am. Rep. 625.

R. C. L. Vol. XVIII.-81.

6. Houston v. Deloach, 43 Ala. 364, 94 Am. Dec. 689.

7. Glasgow v. Lipse, 117 U. S. 327, 6 S. Ct. 757, 29 U. S. (L. ed.) 901; Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609, 20 So. 800, 34 L.R.A. 283; Martin v. United States, 2 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 89, 15 Am. Dec. 129; Robinson v. International Life Assur. Soc., 42 N. Y. 54, 1 Am. Rep. 400.

8. Hendry v. Benlisa, 37 Fla. 609, 20 So. 800, 34 L.R.A. 283.

1281

where counterfeit money is circulated, it is usually uttered in such quarters as to render it difficult, if not impossible, to trace it back to its source. The innocent taker of such paper is not generally guilty of any culpable negligence; and between several successive takers it is impossible to hold any one more in fault than the rest, for not detecting the cheat. In general, however, payment in spurious bills, base coin, or counterfeit money is not good; and where payment is made in counterfeit bank bills, the person making the payment not knowing that they were false, the payee may recover from him the amount of such bills.10 But a person taking such paper should not, without some adequate excuse, retain it without action. beyond such time as would give him reasonable opportunity to inform himself, without inconvenience or a neglect of other business to attend to it. The necessity for promptness exists in all cases; and where it appears there has been any delay beyond what was reasonably adequate under the circumstances to enable the party to inform himself, he should not recover. And there should be some care in the taking as well as afterwards.11 Where notes purporting to be treasury notes indorsed by the holders thereof "to the order of the Secretary of the Treasury for redemption," were purchased before their maturity, under the authority of an act of Congress, by an assistant treasurer of the United States, it was held that the payment. by him therefor did not without the further order of the Secretary of the Treasury retire them and that until such order was given or until it ought to have been given, the government did not accept the notes as genuine. It was further held that there was no such delay by the Treasury Department in returning the notes as spurious. as would preclude the United States from recovering the money paid therefor.12

21. Redemption of Mutilated Coin. The United States statutes provide that the Treasury Department may prescribe rules by which coin and paper money which may become unfit for circulation may be redeemed or exchanged, and such rules have been so prescribed. One of the provisions is in effect that pieces that are stamped, bent, or twisted out of shape, or otherwise imperfect, but showing no material loss of metal, will be redeemed.13

22. Admissibility of Parol Evidence to Explain Medium of Payment. It is quite clear that a contract to pay dollars, made between citizens of any state of the Union, while maintaining its constitu

9. Atwood v. Cornwall, 28 Mich. 389, 23 U. S. (L. ed.) 242.

336, 15 Am. Rep. 219.

10. See PAYMENT.

13. Cincinnati Northern Traction Co. v. Rossnagle, 84 Ohio St. 310, 95

11. Atwood v. Cornwall, 28 Mich. N. E. 884, Ann. Cas. 1912C 639, 35 336, 15 Am. Rep. 219.

12. Cook v. United States, 91 U. S.

L.R.A. (N.S.) 1030.

tional relations with the national government, is a contract to pay lawful money of the United States, and cannot be modified or explained by parol evidence. But it is equally clear, if in any other country, coins or notes denominated dollars should be authorized of different value from the coins or notes which are current here under that name, that in a suit upon a contract to pay dollars, made in that country, evidence would be admitted to prove what kind of dollars were intended, and if it should turn out that foreign dollars were meant, to prove their equivalent value in lawful money of the United States. Such evidence does not modify or alter the contract. It simply explains an ambiguity, which, under the general rules of evidence, may be removed by parol evidence.14

14. Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 19 U. S. (L. ed.) 361.

1283