Granville County NcArchives Court.....Littlejohn's Executors, Jeter & Jeter V. 1819
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Guy Potts http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00017.html#0004214 January 21, 2009, 2:51 pm

Source: Nc Reports
Written: 1819

Jeter and Jeter v. Littlejohn's Executors

From Granville

May Term 1819

A bond was given before the revolutionary war for a certain sum, proclamation 
money. During the war a tender of the debt was made in paper money, but before 
the paper money depreciated. In 1798, application was made for payment, suit 
was instituted and judgment recovered. The Defendants at law filed their bill 
in Equity, to be relieved from the payment of interest, from the time of the 
tender to the time application was made for payment in 1798, and charging in 
their bill that they knew not where the bond was, until this application for 
payment was made.

Complainants are entitled to be relieved against the interest, from the time 
of tender to the demand for payment: for at the time the tender was made, 
paper money was a legal tender, and it had not depreciated.

A plea of tender can be supported at law, only by the Defendant's bringing 
into Court the money he admits to be due: and this is required that the 
Plaintiff may have the immediate benefit of the sum so paid in.

Complainants prayed in their bill to be relieved against the payment of 
interest upon a bond given before the revolutionary war, and on which a tender 
had been made in paper money before its depreciation. The bill charged, that 
Samuel Jeter, the father of Complainants, some time before the revolutionary 
war, executed to Young, Miller & Co. his writing obligatory, for the sum of 219
£, proclamation money, with a condition underwritten, that said writing should 
be void on his the said Samuel's paying on or before a particular day therein 
mentioned 129£. 6s. like money. That the said Samuel in 1777 or 1778, after 
the bond became due, tendered the sum due on said bond to Robert Bell, the 
known agent of the firm of Young, Miller & Co., and who then had the bond in 
his possession: that the tender was made in paper money, then the currency of 
the State, and not depreciated; that Bell refused to receive the money so 
tendered: and most of the partners of the firm being British merchants, 
shortly afterwards withdrew from the State, in consequence of the hostilities 
then existing, and remained abroad until the close of the war: that the said 
bond was taken away by them, or left here in a place unknown to the said 
Samuel. That Samuel Jeter died about 1796: that no application was made to him 
for payment, after the tender made by him in 1777 or 1778. That in 1798, 
application was made to Complainants for payment, and they were sued as 
executors de son tort, of the said Samuel, and judgment obtained in 
Hillsborough Superior Court at October Term, 1801. The bill prayed, that the 
Plaintiffs at law might be enjoined from enforcing payment of interest upon 
the sum mentioned in the condition of the bond, from the time of the tender to 
the time application was made to Complainants for payment, in 1798.

An injunction was awarded agreeably to the prayer of the bill; and George 
Alston and William Littlejohn, the surviving partners of Young, Miller & Co. 
put in their answers, and admitted that Robert Bell was the agent of the firm, 
denied any knowledge of the tender charged in the bill, and contended that if 
any such tender were made, it was at a time when the paper money had greatly 
depreciated, and that Complainants ought to have availed themselves of the 
plea of tender in the trial at law.

Upon the hearing of the cause, an issue was submitted to the Jury. Whether 
Samuel Jeter did tender to Robert Bell, agent of the firm of Young, Miller & 
Co., the sum actually due on the said bond, or offered to pay the same; and if 
so, at what time? The Jury found that Samuel Jeter did make such a tender, and 
made it before any depreciation of the paper currency took place. It was 
referred to this Court to say what decree should be made in the case.

By the Court: A plea of tender can be supported at law only by the Defendant's 
bringing into Court the money he admits to be due; and this is required, that 
the Plaintiff may have the immediate benefit of the sum so paid in. But the 
reason of the rule altogether fails, when money has so notoriously depreciated 
as to have become of no value. Is it probable that the Plaintiff would, in 
such a case, take the money out of Court? Or is it reasonable that a debtor 
should be required to preserve it through a long period of such civil 
convulsion as that which occurred after the tender was made? This, the finding 
of the Jury has fixed at a period anterior to any depreciation, and therefore 
the loss ought not to fall on the complainants. The Court is clearly of 
opinion, that the Complainants are entitled to a deduction of the interest 
from the time the tender was made until a demand for payment was made, of 
which an account was to be taken by the Master.

Cited: Tate v. Smith, 70 NC 687

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/granville/court/littlejo771wl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.poppet.org/ncfiles/

File size: 5.5 Kb