28 Ark.] DECEMBER TERM, 1873. '335 Tucker vs. Horner, Adm'r. MC= vs, HORNER, Adm'r. CONFEDERATE Wan BONDS : Not a valid consideration. Bonds issued by this state, during the civil war, in aid of tbe rebellion, commonly known as war bowls, were not a valid consideration for a promissory note. APPEAL from Monroe Circuit Court. Hon. JOHN E. BENNETT, Circuit Judge. Hughes & Smith and Garland & Nash, for appellant. Oates, ENGLISH, Sp. J. S. H. Tucker sued Oliver H. in the Monroe circuit court, on a bill of exchange drawn by Oates 1st February, 1862, in Little Rock, in favor of Tucker, on Bradley, Wilson & Co., New Orleans. Oates pleaded that the "consideration for which said bill of exchange was given was confederate currency, known as war
336 . SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS, [28 Ark. bonds, issued by the rebellions government of the state of Arkansas, during' the late war, in aid thereof." To this plea a general demurrer was interposed by the plaintiff below, which was overruled by the court. The plaintiff rested; final judgment was rendered for the defendant, and theY plaintiff appealed; • after which, Oates died and Horner, his administrator, was made a party in this court. It was finally settled by the supreme court of the United States, in Hanauer v. Woodruff, 15 Wall., 439, that bonds issue& by the state' of Arkansas during the civil war, in aid of the relkllion, commonly known as war bonds, were not a valid consideratimr for a promissory note, etc. The judgment of the court Velow must be affirmed. BENNETT, J., being disqualified, did not sit. in this case:
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.