Rau & Rieke vs. Boyle & Boyle. fifty-nine hogsheads, and that they are responsible, but attempt to escape it, and to settle his claim by charging him with what they aver is his part of the loss. This they cannot do. The proper basis for the settlement is as follows: Proceeds of fifty-nine hogsheads of tobacco - $8,977 44 Deduct amount due for same 5,000 00 2)$3,977 44 To the one half of this sum Boyles are entitled, viz: To which add amount paid Shotwell on bills, $1,988 72 1,387 85 $3,376 57 Making the sum of with interest from the 9th of May, 1865, till paid, and costs in the court below. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with directions to render judgment for the amount stated, and for further proceedings consistent herewith. Rodes vs. Patillo, &c. CASE 37-PETITION EQUITY-JUNE 5. Rodes vs. Patillo, &c. APPEAL FROM WARREN CIRCUIT COURT. Currency which was recognized as money by the laws and military authority of the Confederate States, must be regarded as a valuable and not as a vicious consideration in contracts made within the Confederate States; and such contracts will be enforced. J. R. UNDERWOOD, (Martin vs. Hortin, 1 For Appellant, CITED 1 Bush, 629; Martin vs. Hortin. HALSELL & DULANY, CITED For Hendrick, MS. Opn., Oct., 1857; Bodley's heirs vs. Morris. LOVING & RODES, CITED For Patillo, 1 Bouvier's Institutes, sec. 895, page 353. Civil Code, secs. 299, 440, 251, 442, 443, 439, 449. 2 Kent., p. 332; 1 Duer on Inst., 561, 562. 1 Kent., side pages 77, 78, 79, 67, 69. 1 Bouvier's Law Dic., p. 176. Halleck's Int. Law, p. 357. Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 556, sec. 15, and note 176. 2 Bush, 463; Hyatt vs. James' adm'r. 2 Bush, 296; Leathers vs. Com. Ins. Co. Broom's Legal Maxims, side p. 658. 1 Duvall, 20; Laughlin vs. Dean. Rodes vs. Patillo, &c. 2 Duvall, 384; Campbell vs. Anderson's adm'r. 9 B. Mon., 610; 1 Peters 25; 1 Mon., 154. 3 Mon., 339; 5 Dana, 56; 4 Mon., 205. 6 J. J. Mar., 197; 9 Dana, 395. 2 Duvall, 81, 142, 429, 489; 4 Met., 402. 1 Bush, 311, 229; 2 Bush, 211; Yowell vs. Gaines. JUDGE PETERS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT: The contract which was the foundation of this action was made in one of the Confederate States, the consideration for which was currency, which was recognized by the laws of the State and the military authority of the Confederate States, which were at the time at war with the adhering States of the Union, as money; its circulation encouraged, and it did so circulate within the jurisdiction of said Confederate States, and must, therefore, as was held by this court in Martin vs. Hortin (1 Bush, 629), upon quite a number of authorities cited, be regarded as a valuable, and not a vicious or illegal consideration, especially when sought after and voluntarily received and used, as was done by appellee. To permit a party to take and use the money, and then to escape from his obligation to pay, would be to recognize a system of legalized robbery. The action in that case was brought on a contract made in Kentucky, which never formed any part of the Confederacy; but in a county of this State, of which it was alleged the Confederate armies had possession. How much stronger, then, must be the case where the contract was made in a State which formed a part of the Confederacy? The right of appellant, then, to enforce the contract, is authoritatively settled. Thomas, &c., vs. Capps, &c. All the errors complained of in the cross-appeal, as occurring in the judgment for the sale of the land, were rather irregularities, and were cured by the appearance of Patillo, and opening the judgment and making defense. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed on the original appeal, and the cause remanded, with directions to dismiss Patillo's cross-petition; and affirmed on the crossappeal. CASE 38-PETITION EQUITY-JUNE 5. Thomas, &c., vs. Capps, &c. APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT. 1. Questions arising on wills, made before the Revised Statutes took effect, must be determined by the pre-existing law. (Revised Statutes, sec. 26, chapter 106.) 2. LANDS ACQUIRED AFTER MAKING THE WILL, AND CONVEYED BY TESTATOR TO ONE OF HIS LEGATEES.-Testator, by will made in 1850, devised all the land he then owned to his wife for life, and, after her death, to be equally divided between his eleven grandchildren. He thereafter, by purchase, acquired other lands, which he conveyed to one of the eleven grandchildren. Surviving his wife, testator died in 1864. Held-That, by the conveyance of the after-acquired land, it was not testator's intention to make an advancement in satisfaction of, nor to adeem, the devise to that grandchild, and that she took an equal part under the will. 3. The intention of the testator is sufficient to rebut or confirm any presumption which may arise, and that intention may be determined by parol evidence. (2 Williams on Executors, 1145.) VOL. V-18 Thomas, &c., vs. Capps, &c. TURNER & CORNELISON and B. F. BUCKNER, CITED For Appellants, 2 Stockton, ch. 158, 163; Sims vs. Sims. 5 Randolph, 577; Jones vs. Mason. 12 Leigh, 1; Moore vs. Hilton. 18 Ves., 140; ex parte Pye. 2 Hare, 434; Suisse vs. Lowther. 2 Redfield on Wills, page 537, sec. 55. 3 Y. & Coll., 397; Davys vs. Boucher. 15 Ves., 507; Ben. Gough vs. Walker. 3 C. & F., 146; Lord Durham vs. Wharton. Sugden on Real Property, 128. 3 Hare, 509; Kirk vs. Eddowes. 2 Russ. & M., y 301; Carver vs. Bowles. 2 Irish Chy. Rep., 633 to 640; Delacour vs. Freeman. 2 H. L. C., d 131; Lady Thynne vs. Earl of Glengall. 1 Kee, 769; 1 Atk., 428. 2 Vern., 298; Goodfellow vs. Burchett. 2 Chy. R., 159; Ray vs. Stanhope. 2 Atk., 458; Saville vs. Saville. 1 Bro. C. C., 425; Grave vs. Earl of Salisbury. 15 Pickering, 133; Richards vs. Humphreys. 5 Barr., 113; Hanberger vs. Root. 3 Wash. C. Rep., 48; Bryan vs. Hunter. O. S. TENNEY and APPERSON & METCALFE, CITED 2 Redfield on Wills, pp. 539, 542. For Appellees, |